Here's another Christian website that answers the anti-Christian website The Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
The author of the SAB answered
Showing posts with label contradictions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contradictions. Show all posts
Monday, April 10, 2023
Monday, December 19, 2022
"The Domain For Truth" Posts on Bible Contradictions
Here are SOME links to some of the "The Domain For Truth''s posts on Bible Contradictions. The links have other links as well:
https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/collection-of-posts-responding-to-bible-contradictions/
https://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/category/bible-contradiction/
Sunday, September 19, 2021
How An Atheist Scholar Bart Ehrman Misleads Millions Of People
In these short videos William Lane Craig exposes how Bart Ehrman misleads people by his misdefining, misapplying, and conflation of the various historical "Criteria of Authenticity". Here's the playlist link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zANl-OcPnfI&list=PLshImU6jwhvz77QRcIo1HkBnZLIW0pMT1
Mike Winger exposes how Bart Ehrman misleads people using shoddy scholarship:
How An Atheist Scholar Misleads Millions Of People: The Mark Series pt 65 (15:34)
https://youtu.be/g2ne3ndnVQk
More resource responding to Bart Ehrman:
Resources Responding to Bart Ehrman
Monday, August 30, 2021
An Orthodox Jew Questions Two Comings of the Messiah Answered by Dr. Michael Brown
An Orthodox Jew Questions Two Comings of the Messiah
https://youtu.be/kxOJhTf-KJ8
Two main objections to Christianity include:
1. Why did Jesus' prophecies about His soon return fail? Doesn't that prove Jesus is a false prophet? Secular critics press this issue.
2. If Jesus is the Messiah, how come the Kingdom of God with all its promised blessings including the defeat and elimination of evil, the arrival of world peace and universal prosperity not come to pass? This is especially pressed by non-Messianic Jews. Since they see those things as the indications of the arrival of Mashiach/Messiah.
I think Partial Preterism does a great job at responding to the first objection. The problem is that some partial preterists eventually come to full preterist conclusions. And among those, some take it further and conclude that Jesus was a failed prophet because the resurrection of the dead didn't take place [among other predictions]. So, the preterist response has its minor drawbacks and disadvantages.
I also think Postmillennialism can do a lot to lift some of the burden and release some of the pressure of the second objection. As Isa. 9:6-7 says:
7 OF THE INCREASE OF HIS GOVERNMENT and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
Jesus' parable of the leaven leavening the whole lump takes time [Matt. 13:33]. So does the increase of Messiah Jesus' government. The stone of Dan. 2:35 gradually grows to fill the whole earth. It doesn't arrive from heaven and land on earth fully grown as a mountain [representing the Kingdom of God]. It arrives as a stone that grows like a seed.
Matt. 13:31 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field.
32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches."
This parable of the mustard seed is a clear allusion to Belteshazzar's vision of a great tree that represented his kingdom that was to be judged [Dan. 4]. Whereas Belteshazzar's tree/kingdom was chopped down, Jesus' mustard tree grows and remains.
Jason cites Ps. 110:1. There's a sense in which 1 Cor. 15:24-26 is the apostle Paul's exegesis and application of Ps. 110:1, and it has postmillennial implications. See the following article:
AN EXEGETICAL DEFENSE OF POSTMILLENNIALISM FROM I CORINTHIANS 15:24-26: The Eschatology of the DIXIT DOMINUS by Gregg Strawbridge
Critics of postmillennialism often object by pointing to present world problems as undermining the viability of the postmil position. But that's looking at history in our short lifespan. When the big picture of history is viewed, it's clear that the world has gotten better since the coming of Christ. A lot of it has to do with the influence of Christians and the Christian worldview and it's affects on science, human dignity, morality, philosophy, government, economics etc.
There were multiple comings of Yahweh in judgment on various nations in the Old Testament using the same cosmic language used by Jesus. Given that background it's highly likely that some form of preterism is true [partial preterism is within the bounds of orthodoxy, but full preterism isn't]. In which case, Jesus' coming did happen in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem just as He predicted. That leaves room for a final coming of Jesus to usher in the New Heavens and New Earth/Eternal State. See Kenneth Gentry's books and mp3s on the subject. Also Gary DeMar's books.
For a good introduction to partial preterism either watch R.C. Sproul's freely available lecture series "The Last Days According to Jesus" linked below, or read his book with the same title.
The Last Days According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul
See also the classic books in defense of preterism freely available here:
The Destruction of Jerusalem: An Absolute and Irresistible Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity by George Peter Holford
OR
The Parousia by James Stuart Russell
The Christ Has Come by E. Hampden-Cook
Hampden-Cook's book argues for full preterism, and Russell's nearly does so. But I recommend them nevertheless because much of what they contain can be used to support partial preterism and weaken the objection that Jesus was a failed prophet.
Refuting the errors and heresy of Full Preterism:
Read Ken Gentry's and Sam Frost's critiques of full preterism. Frost himself was once a full preterist.
Why I Left Full Preterism by Sam Frost;
When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism by Keith Mathison and other authors;
Have We Missed the Second Coming?: A Critique of the Hyper-preterist Error by Kenneth Gentry
Neither partial preterism or postmillennialism need to be true to weaken the force of the two original objections. Even if false, opponents of Christianity have to refute preterism and/or postmillennialism if they are going to continue using those objections.
The added advantage of appealing to both preterism and postmillennialism is that there are multiple lines of evidence for their truth, and those evidences support the inspiration of the Bible because it involves the 1. fulfillment of Jesus' predictions of judgment, and 2. the fulfillment of the prophecies in both the OT and NT of the Messiah's reign spreading around the world.
Christianity is the world's largest religion, and as a living philosophy and way of life it has had more impact on the world [past and present] than any other ideology/worldview. Maybe Moses has had more influence than Jesus. But if Christianity is true, then that falls in line with and adds to Jesus' influence. Since Moses is a forerunner and Biblical type of Jesus. Some might say that earlier ideologies and religions may have also influenced Judaism and Christian. In which case, they they have had more influence. For example, Zoroastrianism et alii. But those are not living, but virtually dead philosophies of life. Besides, if Christianity is true, then given Common Grace we'd expect the positive aspects of non-Christian ideologies to have some influence on or have parallels to Christianity. Whether Persian religions, Greek philosophy, Roman law et cetera.
Sunday, May 23, 2021
Where In the Old Testament Is Human Blood Taught to be Acceptable for Atonement?
On Facebook I encountered an atheist who said he was familiar with the disputes between non-Messianic Jews and believers in Jesus [i.e. Gentile Christians and Messianic Jews]. He thought the Jewish arguments against Christianity are better than the arguments for Christianity. At one point he asked the following.
//can you point to one verse that God allows human blood for atonement?//
The following was my answer:
1. Jesus isn't a MERE human. Yes, Jesus was truly human, but He was (and is) also truly God. While only the human nature of Jesus died [NOT the Divine nature], the divine PERSON endured the sufferings of death and died substitutionarily for sinners on their behalf. As a Protestant I hold to penal substitutionary atonement [though, that's consistent with being coupled with other subsidiary theories of the atonement]. Being Divine, Jesus' sufferings and death are of more value [infinite] than that of finite creatures and therefore could atone for an infinite amount of creatures if necessary.
2. This is also why it's natural to think that the animal sacrifices weren't the ultimate solution for atonement. How could inferior animals atone for superior humans who ARE moral agents? Whereas animals are not moral agents, and don't even rise to the level of human sentience. To use a poor analogy, that's like accidentally destroying a gold wedding ring and offering to make up for it with a beer can ring tab. The OT predicted the coming of the Messiah, and it makes sense for much of the Mosaic Covenant and its laws to be figurative or symbolic or emblematic of the future Messiah's work.
3a. When God was angry with the people of Israel, Moses offered himself to be punished in their place. So the concept of human substitution wasn't completely foreign to a Semitic mindset.
Exo. 32:32 Yet now, if You will forgive their sin --- BUT IF NOT, I pray, BLOT ME OUT OF YOUR BOOK WHICH YOU HAVE WRITTEN."
3b. Even Judah offered himself in the place of Benjamin when there was the threat to arrest Benjamin for allegedly stealing the silver cup. Unbeknownst to them it was their brother Joseph who was testing them. It's interesting that it's JUDAH that offers this exchange/substitution. The Davidic line is from the tribe of Judah. For us Christians, this is a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Jesus who is the heir to the Davidic throne.
4. We Christians believe Isaiah 53 clearly teaches the death of the Messiah as an atonement for sin. I understand that Non-Messianic Jews reject this. I've heard their arguments. I think the Christian arguments are better. See Michael Brown's responses, for an example.
5. Daniel 9:24-26 is another passage Christians believe predicts the atoning death of the Messiah. Of course, Jews reject this interpretation, and atheists think that the book of Daniel is riddled with false and failed prophecies. Atheists believe that the ones that were fulfilled were postdictions and that the book itself was written much later than is claimed [e.g. cf. the recent debate at Modern-Day Debate between 2 atheists and 2 theists].
6. In Numbers 25 when the Israelites committed harlotry and idolatry, God commanded the rebellious leaders of the people [who were HUMAN like Jesus] to be executed in order to turn away the anger of the LORD as a kind of atonement. Jesus is the Federal Head of His people similar to how these leaders were representatives of the people. Similar to how they were punished to save the people under them, so Jesus was punished in the place of His people [BTW, as a Calvinist my default position is Limited Atonement, but I'm open to other views as well].
Num. 25:
1 Now Israel remained in Acacia Grove, and the people began to commit harlotry with the women of Moab.
2 They invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods.
3 So Israel was joined to Baal of Peor, and the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel.
4 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take all the LEADERS of the people and HANG THE OFFENDERS before the LORD, out in the sun, THAT the FIERCE ANGER of the LORD may TURN AWAY from Israel."
That doesn't just sound like mere expiation [removal of sin or guilt], but surprisingly even the stronger idea of propitiation [i.e. turning away wrath].
7. We Christians believe that the command by God for Abraham to sacrifice of Isaac was emblematic of God's sacrificing His Son in our place. Right before Abraham was going to carry it out the Angel of the LORD [whom many Christians think is the pre-incarnate Jesus] told Abraham to stop and not harm Isaac. Then a ram was found nearby which was evidently provided for by God to be the substitute for Isaac. God had many reasons for commanding the sacrifice of Abraham. Some include
1. To show that Abraham's commitment to his God was no less than other pagans' devotion to their gods.
2. To indicate for all time afterwards that God rejects human sacrifice [we can discuss Jephthah if you like].
3. As a figure of Christ' sacrifice, the unique Son of God, just as Isaac was the unique son of Abraham.
Notice the prophecy in Gen. 22:14
Gen. 22:14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-LORD-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, "In the Mount of the LORD it shall be provided."
That's the same area in which Jesus was crucified. For the Christian, the crucifixion of Jesus was the place and time when that prophecy was fulfilled and provision of final atonement was provided.
Some after thoughts:
Regarding #2, I found this quote from chapter 5 of A.W. Pink's Divine Covenants:
It is true that great relief was provided by the ceremonial law, for provision was there made for obtaining forgiveness. The means for effecting this was the sacrifices— "the life—blood of an irrational creature, itself unconscious of sin, being accepted by God in His character of Redeemer for the life of the sinner. A mode of satisfaction no doubt in itself unsatisfactory, since there was no just correspondence between the merely sensuous life of an unthinking animal and the higher life of a rational and responsible being; in the strict reckoning of justice the one could form no adequate compensation for the other. But in this respect it was not singular; it was part of a scheme of things which bore throughout the marks of relative imperfection" (P. Fairbairn).
Saturday, May 22, 2021
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Does The Gospel of Mark Provide Enough Time for Jesus to be Buried Before Sunset?
The following is a dialogue/debate I had with someone on Facebook. Both our names have been changed to pseudonyms. His comments are in blue.
Tommy Barker:
According to Mark's narrative Jesus must be buried "before the Sabbath." Joseph of Arimathea comes out of the woodwork to do the deed which seems to be in accordance with Jewish law - Deut. 21:23. Unfortunately, Mark does not leave enough room for Joseph to complete his sequence of events before the Sabbath as I will demonstrate below.
In Mk. 15:42 it says "when evening had come...as it was the day before the Sabbath." This most likely means it was around 6pm due to Mark's theme of 3 hour intervals in his narrative, Mk. 15:25 - Jesus is crucified at 9am, Mk. 15:33 - darkness covers the land at noon, Mk. 15:34 - Jesus dies at 3pm. Since word of Jesus' death would take time to travel to Joseph and Mark clearly has a theme of three hour intervals, around 6pm seems the most plausible timing for "evening" in Mk. 15:42.
Interestingly enough, Jewish "days" started at sundown not midnight, meaning that the Sabbath would begin around 7-8pm. So with the sequence of events, Mark unwittingly has Joseph bury Jesus on the Sabbath which would have been illegal. Oops. Mark seems unaware or doesn't care that Jewish days started at nightfall. It would be physically impossible for Joseph to complete all the tasks Mark depicts him doing between 6pm and sundown.
1. He has to go to Pilate and request to meet with him on the busiest day of the year (Passover) - Mk. 15:43.
2. Pilate has to summon the centurion and wait for him to confirm Jesus was dead - Mk. 15:44-45.
3. Joseph runs an errand to buy linen (which would have been illegal on Passover as no one was allowed to work or buy and sell goods on a festival day) - Mk. 15:46, Exodus 12:16, Leviticus 23:6-7, Nehemiah 10:31. Oops.
4. Joseph would have to travel to the site of crucifixion well outside the city.
5. Then he has to actually remove the body and take it to his "own" tomb which most likely would have been far away from the site of crucifixion. Mark does not say Joseph had any help.
This chronology of events clearly has Joseph burying Jesus on the Sabbath (nighttime) and as such can't be historical as far as Mark's timing between Passover and Sabbath goes.
So I'm wondering how people who view this as actual history explain this one?
ANNOYED PINOY:
Someone else posted this in a Christian FB group. Here's my answer (with minor changes):
There is no "theme" of 3 hour intervals. Mark is just giving the general time. It's like driving 298 miles and when asked, saying "I drove 300 miles".
"Since word of Jesus' death would take time to travel to Joseph and Mark clearly has a theme of three hour intervals..."
Why would it have taken time if they were one of the witnesses to the crucifixion? That's not to say that they were watching all that time. They probably knew the Roman practice of breaking people's legs on crosses to make sure they died before the beginning of a major Jewish holy day. So, there need not be a major delay.
"1. He has to go to Pilate and request to meet with him on the busiest day of the year (Passover) - Mk. 15:43."
Joseph was a "respected member of the Council" according to Mark 15:43. He would probably have been among those Jewish leaders whom Pilate would have granted a quick audience. W.L. Craig points out that in 26 AD/CE Pilate eventually relented when the Jews were willing to die rather than have Roman Standards remain standing in Israel. Roman Standards were considered idols to the Jews. Pilate saw that a general riot was about to break out and so changed his mind to keep the peace. He had the standards removed. See this video of W.L. Craig: https://youtu.be/i8FNTRvJjMc?t=10m42s. Pilate would have learned his lesson by the time of Christ's crucifixion.
"2. Pilate has to summon the centurion and wait for him to confirm Jesus was dead - Mk. 15:44-45."
Why couldn't the centurion have been nearby? Why must he have been far away?
As someone else said, "Also I don't think we need to have the Centurion leave go check on the body and come back he may have already witness the death of Christ and simply just reported it or verified it to Pilot."
"3. Joseph runs an errand to buy linen (which would have been illegal on Passover as no one was allowed to work or buy and sell goods on a festival day) - Mk. 15:46, Exodus 12:16, Leviticus 23:6-7, Nehemiah 10:31. Oops."
Not if the purchases happened before sunset. Joseph almost certainly had different servants who did his multiple bidding. Even without appealing to the Jewish concept of shaliah (i.e. the legal agent/emissary/representative), it's perfectly common today for someone to say they bought X even though it was someone else in the household who literally and actually did it.
Some of the purchases may have happened before Christ's actual death. Joseph might have planned in advance and told servants to make such purchases. Mark 15:46 only says that Joseph had bought a linen shroud. It doesn't tell us when it was purchased or that it was definitely purchased after Jesus' died. Why wait afterward if you knew the Romans were determined to make sure everyone on crosses would be dead before sunset that day (before the beginning of a major Jewish Holy Day)? That's just stupid.
"4. Joseph would have to travel to the site of crucifixion well outside the city."
Who said it's WELL outside the city? The skeptic is inserting that into the story.
"5. Then he has to actually remove the body and take it to his "own" tomb which most likely would have been far away from the site of crucifixion. Mark does not say Joseph had any help."
It's an assumption that the tomb was far away. Also, being a respected member of the Council suggests he was old. An old man with authority who probably was wealthy and respected is unlikely to have taken the body of Christ off the cross and carried it to the far away tomb by himself. The text doesn't mention a donkey, horse, camel or shoes either. I guess Joseph must have carried Jesus' body on his shoulders and walked barefoot the entire 100 miles to the tomb all by himself too, huh? [That was sarcasm BTW]
"This chronology of events clearly has Joseph burying Jesus on the Sabbath (nighttime) and as such can't be historical as far as Mark's timing between Passover and Sabbath goes."
Nowhere has this skeptic proven this. All he's done is piece together worse case possibilities and claimed they were likely to have happened.
But EVEN IF it occurred at night, so what? If Joseph was a secret disciple of Christ he may have applied Jesus' teaching about works of mercy during the sabbath and applied it to Jesus' burial. By mercy on the sabbath I'm talking about Jesus' teaching about healing on the sabbath (Mark 3), plucking small amounts of grain for food on the sabbath (Mark 2). If Joseph believed Jesus to be the "Lord of the Sabbath" as Jesus claimed in Mark 2 (of which Joseph might have heard about), then it would be perfectly permissible for the Lord of the Sabbath to have had exceptions performed in His situation.
Finally, Jesus' death and resurrection doesn't depend or hinge on the truth of Biblical inerrancy (even though I believe it). So, even if everything the skeptic claims is true, big deal.
Tommy Barker:
//There is no "theme" of 3 hour intervals. Mark is just giving the general time.//
But the events are clearly divided into 3 hour intervals so there still could be a theme. I see no reason to believe your confident assertion more probable. Regardless, evening in Mk. 15:42 would have been around 6pm because that's when "evening" is.
//Why would it have taken time if they were one of the witnesses to the crucifixion?//
Because they would have to travel and tell Joseph Jesus was dead. Duh! It does not say Joseph was just standing there watching. It says the women watched from afar and there is no evidence anyone other than the centurion knew Jesus was dead. All we're told is that Joseph magically finds out Jesus died somehow.
//Joseph was a "respected member of the Council" according to Mark 15:43.//
Respected by the Jews perhaps but the Romans couldn't care less.
//He would probably have been among those Jewish leaders whom Pilate would have granted a quick audience.//
Lol! Yeah, I'm sure Pilate dropped whatever he was doing on the busiest day of the year to go talk to a Jew upon his immediate request. Sorry, this is just an unfounded assertion. It would still take time to seek out Pilate and request to meet with him. It's not finger snapping magic.
//Pilate eventually relented when the Jews were willing to die rather than have Roman Standards remain standing in Israel. //
What does this have to do with the OP?
For context:
Josephus tells us when Pilate first came into Jerusalem, he had stationed around town the Roman standards, which had an image of the emperor embellished on them. When the Jews of Jerusalem saw the standards in the morning, they were outraged: no images were allowed in the holy city, as suggested in the law of Moses, let alone images of a foreign ruler who was worshiped elsewhere as a god. A Jewish crowd appeared to Pilate at his palace in Caesarea and demanded that he remove the standards, leading to a standoff that lasted five days. Pilate had no interest at all in bowing to Jewish demands (contrast the stories of Jesus’s trial in the Gospels!). On the contrary, at the end of the five days he directed his troops to surround the Jewish protestors, three rows deep, and cut them to shreds. Rather than backing down, the Jews to a person reached out their necks and told the soldiers to do their utmost. They would rather die than cave in. Pilate realized that he could not murder such masses in cold blood and, “surprised at their prodigious superstition,” ordered the standards removed (Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.1).
Josephus also tells us when Pilate wanted to build an aqueduct to provide freshwater to Jerusalem he financed the project by raiding the sacred treasury of the temple. The authorities and the people were outraged and protested loudly. Pilate responded by having his soldiers mix in with the crowds, disguised, to attack the people, not with swords but with clubs, at his command. They did so, and “many” of the Jews were killed in the onslaught, and many others were trampled to death in the tumult that followed (Antiquities 18.3.2).
//Why couldn't the centurion have been nearby? Why must he have been far away?//
Does it say he was nearby? How do you know he wasn't still at his post watching the crucifixion victims? Regardless, tracking down and summoning the exact centurion would take time especially on Passover due to the amount of people in the city.
//As someone else said, "Also I don't think we need to have the Centurion leave go check on the body and come back he may have already witness the death of Christ and simply just reported it or verified it to Pilot."//
Why don't you read more stuff into the text that isn't there?
//Not if the purchases happened before sunset.//
Wrong. Working and selling stuff was forbidden on Passover. Friday was Passover, the day Jesus was killed according to Mark.
//Joseph almost certainly had different servants who did his multiple bidding. Even without appealing to the Jewish concept of shaliah (i.e. the legal agent/emissary/representative), it's perfectly common today for someone to say they bought X even though it was someone else in the household who literally and actually did it.//
This is irrelevant because buying an item implies that someone was working and selling it on Passover which was forbidden. Passover rules were almost as strict as Sabbath observation.
//Some of the purchases may have happened before Christ's actual death. Joseph might have planned in advance and told servants to make such purchases. Mark 15:46 only says that Joseph had bought a linen shroud. It doesn't tell us when it was purchased or that it was definitely purchased after Jesus' died. Why wait afterward if you knew the Romans were determined to make sure everyone on crosses would be dead before sunset that day (before the beginning of a major Jewish Holy Day)? That's just stupid.//
Lol! No, it says "then he bought the linen" indicating a chronological order of events. Gosh, this is getting tiresome.
//Who said it's WELL outside the city? The skeptic is inserting that into the story.//
The site of crucifixion was at least outside the city walls. My source says it was 2 miles from Pilate's praetorium which would take 30 min walking at a brisk pace.
//It's an assumption that the tomb was far away.//
You think the rich and "distinguished counselor" Joseph of Arimathea had his burial plot near the gruesome site of crucifixion? Think again.
//Also, being a respected member of the Council suggests he was old. An old man with authority who probably was wealthy and respected is unlikely to have taken the body of Christ off the cross and carried it to the far away tomb by himself. The text doesn't mention a donkey, horse, camel or shoes either. I guess Joseph must have carried Jesus' body on his shoulders and walked barefoot the entire 100 miles to the tomb all by himself too, huh? [That was sarcasm BTW]//
While that's plausible in real life, Mark says Joseph did it all.
//Nowhere has this skeptic proven this. All he's done is piece together worse case possibilities and claimed they were likely to have happened.//
It's pretty demonstrable and I'm going by what Mark says without reading anything in. Joseph starts his tasks around evening 6pm. Sunset is around 7pm. That makes nightfall around 7:30pm. It's physically impossible to complete all those tasks before nightfall even when being generous with the timing.
//But EVEN IF it occurred at night, so what?//
It's against Jewish law and most likely wouldn't have happened as depicted in the narrative.
//If Joseph was a secret disciple of Christ he may have applied Jesus' teaching about works of mercy during the sabbath and applied it to Jesus' burial. By mercy on the sabbath I'm talking about Jesus' teaching about healing on the sabbath (Mark 3), plucking small amounts of grain for food on the sabbath (Mark 2). If Joseph believed Jesus to be the "Lord of the Sabbath" as Jesus claimed in Mark 2 (of which Joseph might have heard about), then it would be perfectly permissible for the Lord of the Sabbath to have had exceptions performed in His situation.//
You're getting the "secret disciple" Joseph from a later source, not Mark. Eating when you're hungry and healing/saving a life aren't considered "work" by Jesus in those passages and are therefore permissible. Burial on the Sabbath, on the other hand, would still be seen as work and thus prohibited.
//Finally, Jesus' death and resurrection doesn't depend or hinge on the truth of Biblical inerrancy (even though I believe it). So, even if everything the skeptic claims is true, big deal.//
Pfff.
ANNOYED PINOY:
Tommy Barker My comments will have this type of arrow ==>
==>You write as if the burden of proof is on people like me who beileve there was enough time. When, in fact, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence and reasons why there could not (BY ANY POSSIBILITY) be enough time. You're the one making the postive assertion. It seems to me that I and others have poked enough holes in your argument to drive a semi-truck though. You probably can do so, so I ask you, "Can you list for me reputable scholars who believe there wasn't enough time for the events recorded by Mark to have transpired?"
"Because they would have to travel and tell Joseph Jesus was dead. Duh! It does not say Joseph was just standing there watching. It says the women watched from afar and there is no evidence anyone other than the centurion knew Jesus was dead. All we're told is that Joseph magically finds out Jesus died somehow"
==>The burden of proof is on you to show that Joseph COULDN'T have been standing there or have been going to and from the crucifixion site. On the approach of such a major Jewish Holy Day the Romans would have made sure that the bodies would haved died and taken off the crosses before sunset. The Jews would have also known that the Romans try to accomodate them on their belief that it would defile the land (John 19:31//Deut. 21:23).
"Respected by the Jews perhaps but the Romans couldn't care less."
==>Another baseless and unargued for assumption. Remember, you have the burden of making it impossible for there to have been enough time.
"Lol! Yeah, I'm sure Pilate dropped whatever he was doing on the busiest day of the year to go talk to a Jew upon his immediate request."
==> And why would it be so busy? Because the Romans were planning a party? No, because they had to attend to all the stuff that accompanies Jewish Holy Days. You think they're going to intentionally be less organized, disciplined and efficient during such a time?
"Does it say he was nearby? How do you know he wasn't still at his post watching the crucifixion victims? "
==>Again the burden of proof is on you. Not me. Are you claiming it was impossible for the centurion to be nearby? If I were an atheist I would be so much more charitable in reading the Gospel account. Especially in order not to make me look like a fanatic who's got an axe to grind that I have to postulate the worst case senarios.
"Wrong. Working and selling stuff was forbidden on Passover. Friday was Passover, the day Jesus was killed according to Mark."
==>It's not clear which day was Passover. Also, are you saying that Joseph or his servants could not have purchased materials from Gentiles who have no qualms about selling on or near a Jewish Holy day?
"This is irrelevant because buying an item implies that someone was working and selling it on Passover which was forbidden. Passover rules were almost as strict as Sabbath observation."
==> So, Joseph couldn't have had Gentile servants who bought from Gentile sellers? Similar to how Manicheans would have non-Manicheans do their "dirty work"? Jews didn't think the Sabbath was binding on Gentiles and therefore Joseph wouldn't have been encouraging Gentiles to sin by make such purchases.
"Lol! No, it says "then he bought the linen" indicating a chronological order of events. Gosh, this is getting tiresome."
==> I'm not a Greek scholar, so I can't be certain of the following. Someone else said in another group: "Joseph did not have to run an illegal errand to buy linen; the Greek for “bought” is an aorist particle, which means he did it at an unspecified time before the described action – which means he could have bought it days earlier."
"The site of crucifixion was at least outside the city walls. My source says it was 2 miles from Pilate's praetorium which would take 30 min walking at a brisk pace."
==> So, because it doesn't mention that Joseph used a cart or horse he couldn't have gone with his servants on a cart? You mean to tell me an elderly wealthy, respected man with clout would choose to walk when he knew he was pressed for time? Really? Don't you see how irrationally desperate your attempts are to debunk the narrative?
"You think the rich man Joseph of Arimathea had his burial plot near the gruesome site of crucifixion? Think again."
==>So, you admit he's rich. But not rich enough to have servants and horses and carts to take him quickly from here to there? The internal consistency of your hypothetical is seriously lacking.
"While that's plausible in real life, Mark says Joseph did it all."
==> John 19:1 says, "Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him." Even assuming this never happened, do you really think the author of gJohn meant for us think that Pilate PERSONALLY flogged Jesus? Of course not. Such language is understood to mean Pilate gave the order to do so. Representational language was an understood given in the 1st century. That's why even though I mentioned the principle of Shaliah, I didn't think I had to employ it. Moving from gJohn to gMark..... Mark 15:15 says, QUOTE: "So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified." END QUOTE. Using your (flawed) exegesis, I guess Pilate PERSONALLY released Barabbas, Pilate PERSONALLY scourged Jesus, and Pilate PERSONALLY delivered Jesus to be crucified.
"You're getting the "secret disciple" Joseph from a later source, not Mark."
==> My poking holes in your hypothetical doesn't depend on whether Joseph was a secret or public disciple.
"Eating when you're hungry and healing/saving a life aren't considered "work" by Jesus in those passages and are therefore permissible. Burial on the Sabbath, on the other hand, would still be seen as work and thus prohibited."
==>You're pulling that out of nowhere. How do you know that Joseph couldn't have interpreted Jesus' teaching that way? All three activities that are being compared have to do with the Sabbath. You seem to be committing the Special Pleading fallacy. Also, Joseph could have heard of the story of the woman who anointed Jesus and interpreted it and applied it in the way I suggested.
"6 But Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me.8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial.9 And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."-Mark 14:6-9
Also, if it was the practice of the Romans to break the legs of crucifixion victims in order not to needlessly offend Jewish sensibilities, then wouldn't they have done so early enough so that Jews could deal with bodies in a TIMELY manner? Meaning, giving them enough time to deal with the dead. Was Jesus the first and only beloved victim of crucifixion?
Had Joseph never heard of the details of crucifixion before? Was it impossible for him to exercise any advanced foresight? IMPOSSIBLE? Really?
Tommy Barker:
//==>You write as if the burden of proof is on people like me who beileve there was enough time. When, in fact, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence and reasons why there could not (BY ANY POSSIBILITY) be enough time. You're the one making the postive assertion. It seems to me that I and others have poked enough holes in your argument to drive a semi-truck though.//
Your objections were really bad and consist of ad hoc wishful thinking. All of those tasks would be physically impossible to complete between 6pm and nightfall.
//You probably can do so, so I ask you, "Can you list for me reputable scholars who believe there wasn't enough time for the events recorded by Mark to have transpired?"//
JK Aldrich, Johannes Schreiber are a couple that I've read who bring up something similar. https://books.google.com/books?id=cSVNH95ckNUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA71#v=onepage&q&f=false
//The burden of proof is on you to show that Joseph COULDN'T have been standing there or have been going to and from the crucifixion site.//
1. There is no evidence that Joseph was at the site of crucifixion.
2. Therefore, he was at the site of crucifixion.
What kind of logic is that? If you want to claim that he was at the site of crucifixion then he still would have had to travel inside the city to Pilate's quarters after evening had arrived so that doesn't really help you get out of the chronological quagmire.
//On the approach of such a major Jewish Holy Day the Romans would have made sure that the bodies would haved died and taken off the crosses before sunset. The Jews would have also known that the Romans try to accomodate them on their belief that it would defile the land (John 19:31//Deut. 21:23).//
Oh, so now all of a sudden Jewish law and beliefs become important when your first reply made it sound like following Jewish law was no big deal? Yeah, ok. First of all, this is false as the Romans did not care about Jewish sensitivities. Secondly, it's irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the problems in Mark's chronology.
//==>Another baseless and unargued for assumption. Remember, you have the burden of making it impossible for there to have been enough time.//
You made the claim that Joseph would have been respected by the Roman authorities. Care to demonstrate that?
//==> And why would it be so busy? Because the Romans were planning a party? No, because they had to attend to all the stuff that accompanies Jewish Holy Days. You think they're going to intentionally be less organized, disciplined and efficient during such a time?//
Well, security was probably a concern. Managing 200,000+ people and such. Surely, there would have been other issues arise on such a busy day. Any way you cut it, 30 min to 1 hour is a conservative amount of time it would take for Joseph to travel to and meet with Pilate. That would have almost been sundown already.
//Again the burden of proof is on you. Not me. Are you claiming it was impossible for the centurion to be nearby?//
1. There is no evidence the centurion was nearby.
2. Therefore, he was nearby.
Where did you learn this shitty fallacious reasoning?
It says the centurion had to be "summoned" meaning he was at some other location and would have to be tracked down. We have no reason to believe he had even left his post at the crucifixion site. So that would mean someone would have to walk to the site and back with the centurion. That would at least take another hour.
//==>It's not clear which day was Passover.//
They eat the Passover (Seder) meal the previous evening (Thursday night). Jesus is crucified the next morning. Therefore, Passover lasted from Thursday night until Friday night upon which the Sabbath commenced.
//Also, are you saying that Joseph or his servants could not have purchased materials from Gentiles who have no qualms about selling on or near a Jewish Holy day?//
Nehemiah 10:31
"When the neighboring peoples bring merchandise or grain to sell on the Sabbath, we will not buy from them on the Sabbath or on any *holy day.* Every seventh year we will forgo working the land and will cancel all debts."
Oops.
//==> So, Joseph couldn't have had Gentile servants who bought from Gentile sellers? Similar to how Manicheans would have non-Manicheans do their "dirty work"? Jews didn't think the Sabbath was binding on Gentiles and therefore Joseph wouldn't have been encouraging Gentiles to sin by make such purchases.//
Wow, you got anything left on the bottom of that barrel you're scraping? jesus christ.
//==> I'm not a Greek scholar, so I can't be certain of the following. Someone else said in another group: "Joseph did not have to run an illegal errand to buy linen; the Greek for “bought” is an aorist particle, which means he did it at an unspecified time before the described action – which means he could have bought it days earlier."//
Unfortunately, the straightforward reading of the text represents a chronological sequence of events, one happening right after the other. Reading it any other way strains the text out of desperation.
//==> So, because it doesn't mention that Joseph used a cart or horse he couldn't have gone with his servants on a cart? You mean to tell me an elderly wealthy, respected man with clout would choose to walk when he knew he was pressed for time? Really? Don't you see how irrationally desperate your attempts are to debunk the narrative?//
Yeah, navigating a horse and buggy through 200,000+ people on Passover would get you there real quick. In any case, by the time Joseph sets out on his "cart" it's 8pm by a conservative estimate. That's already nighttime dude.
//==>So, you admit he's rich. But not rich enough to have servants and horses and carts to take him quickly from here to there? The internal consistency of your hypothetical is seriously lacking.//
No, it's plausible that he had help, however, Mark gives no evidence for that but instead only mentions "he" did all the tasks. But like I said, even with help he's still burying Jesus on the Sabbath which would have been forbidden.
//==> John 19:1 says, "Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him." Even assuming this never happened, do, you really think the author of gJohn meant for us think that Pilate PERSONALLY flogged Jesus?...//
I already granted that Joseph may have or even most likely would have had help. But it doesn't matter as It would have already been nighttime before they had arrived on scene. You'd think his helpers would let him know that burying people on the Sabbath was forbidden by God. Oops.
//==> My poking holes in your hypothetical doesn't depend on whether Joseph was a secret or public disciple.//
It's Mark's chronology that has more holes than a pin cushion. My critique remains unchallenged.
//==>You're pulling that out of nowhere.//
No i'm not. It was forbidden to do any type of "work" on the Sabbath and also forbidden to touch a corpse, let alone bury anyone -m. Sabb 23.5.
//How do you know that Joseph couldn't have interpreted Jesus' teaching that way?//
Begging the question by assuming Joseph knew Jesus' teaching. Mark doesn't tell us that.
//All three activities that are being compared have to do with the Sabbath. You seem to be commiting the Special Pleading fallacy. Also, Joseph could have heard of the story of the woman who annointed Jesus and interpreted it and applied it in the way I suggested.//
Irrelevant. Burying people on the Sabbath was against Jewish law and most likely a "distinguished counselor" wouldn't do that.
//Also, if it was the practice of the Romans to break the legs of crucifixion victims in order not to needlessly offend Jewish sensitivities, then wouldn't they have done so early enough so that Jews could deal with bodies in a TIMELY manner? Meaning, giving them enough time to deal with the dead. Was Jesus the first and only beloved victim of crucifixion?//
The point of crucifixion was to have the person suffer and refuse them a proper burial. Most victims were left up on the cross to rot then their remains would have been thrown in pits. This is irrelevant though since Joseph doesn't start any of his tasks until around 6pm.
//Had Joseph never heard of the details of crucifixion before? Was it impossible for him to exercise any advanced foresight? IMPOSSIBLE? Really?//
How does this salvage the timeline?
ANNOYED PINOY:
"All of those tasks would be physically impossible to complete between 6pm and nightfall."
==> Your argument is like a bicycle chain with smaller circular links, and where the chain itself links to itself end to end. The nature of your claim/hypothetical is such that it if one link is weak the entire chain breaks. Yet, I've shown the weakness of a number of your links.
"JK Aldrich, Johannes Schreiber are a couple that I've read who bring up something similar...."
==> Thanks for the references.
"1. There is no evidence that Joseph was at the site of crucifixion.
2. Therefore, he was at the site of crucifixion. "
==>That's a strawman representation. I don't claim, nor does my thesis depend on Joseph being at the crucifixion the entire time. My point was that YOU don't know how long or how often Joseph was at the crucifixion site. Since the text doesn't tell us, you're inserting (via eisegesis) a lack of time that you could in no way logically infer necssarily (or even probably).
" If you want to claim that he was at the site of crucifixion then he still would have had to travel inside the city to Pilate's quarters after evening had arrived so that doesn't really help you get out of the chronological quagmire."
==>That assumes that you know Pilate was at his quarters or that he only had one location where he could or would stay to sleep or conduct business.
"Oh, so now all of a sudden Jewish law and beliefs become important when your first reply made it sound like following Jewish law was no big deal. "
==>I was referring to the ROMAN practice of being sensitive of Jewish beliefs. Secondly, when I implied that Joseph may have been less strict regarding Jewish practice, that was regarding the the hypothetical that I granted for the sake of argument. Namely, that you were right and there was not enough time. On the one hand I argued against the entirety your hypothesis, then on the other hand I later addressed your hypothesis as if the majority of it were true.
" First of all, this is false as the Romans did not care about Jewish sensitivities."
==>But you granted that Pilate was sometimes willing to relent if it would prevent a riot. The previous prefects before Pilate were wise enough not to set up Roman Standards. It was Pilate's inexperience in ruling in that area that lead to his mistake of setting them up. Another example would be the Romans not entering the Temple area which was restricted to the Jews. There were many things the Romans did to accomodate and/or appease the Jews. They learned the lessons from the Greeks and Alexander the Great on how not to unnecessarily antagonize the natives they ruled over. If Pilate didn't care at all about accomodating/appeasing the Jews then he wouldn't have released Barabbas (Mark 15:7-15).
"You made the claim that Joseph would have been respected by the Roman authorities. Care to demonstrate that?"
==>Respected enough to meet Joseph. You grant (at least ad arguendo) that Pilate met with Joseph. So, the question that remains is how quickly was he willing or able to do so. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to show that it would have been impossible for it to have been quick. Yet, nothing in the story [even if taken as fiction] requires that.
"Any way you cut it, 30 min to 1 hour is a conservative amount of time it would take for Joseph to travel to and meet with Pilate. That would have almost been sundown already."
==>You're pulling that out of thin air. This was the springtime. The days were already getting longer and sunset was being push further and further back. If you combined all of the holes I've placed into your theory, that would have provided plenty of time for all of it to have been accomplished. Notice that the author of gMark was himself aware that time was of the essence. It's not like he was oblivious to the fact that Joseph had a limited amount of time to get everything done. In fact, the author repeatedly and consciously alludes to that.
"1. There is no evidence the centurion was nearby.
2. Therefore, he was nearby.
Where did you learn this shitty fallacious reasoning?"
==>That's a strawman representation. I never argued that. You're the one who would have to argue that he WASN'T nearby. Since you're making the assertion and the stronger claim that there couldn't be enough time. All I need to do is provide possible or plausible hypothetical scenarios that undermine your position.
"It says the centurion had to be "summoned" meaning he was at some other location. "
==>Why couldn't this location be as near as a block away? You're the one who needs it to be far away, yet nothing in the narrative requires that.
"We have no reason to believe he hadn't even left his post at the crucifixion site."
==> And we have no reason to believe he remained there. Pilate was surprised that Jesus died so quickly. That means Jesus died sooner than the other crucifixion victims. That would have given Joseph more time than if he had to wait till Jesus slowly died from having his legs broken. You don't know all the duties and freedoms of a centurion. Yet your case requires him to have duties which lengthen the time it takes to get them done. You have to remember that centurions were in positions of leadership and authority. The name itself, centurion, comes from the word for 100. He had 100 men under him whom he could command. You argue as if he were a regular rank and file soldier who had to do everything by himself.
"So that would mean someone would have to walk to the site and back with the centurion. That would at least take another hour."
==>I guess Roman Centurions didn't have horses or chariots or carts. They had to walk everywhere like blind beggars. Seriously? And I guess the Romans also didn't have elaborate methods of communication. For example, the use of pigeons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_post
"They eat the Passover (Seder) meal the previous evening before (Thursday night). Jesus is crucified the next morning. Therefore, Passover lasted from Thursday night until Friday night upon which the Sabbath commenced."
==>There is no scholarly consensus when the Passover was in relation to the day of Christ's crucifixion.
"Wow, you got anything left on the bottom of that barrel you're scraping? jesus christ."
==>Loophole transactions are not uncommon in different Jewish historical periods. For example, there are times when Jews might "sell" their leavened materials to their Gentile neighbors for the duration of the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread. After which the Gentile friend would sell the leavened material back to them. The Gentile friend knew in advanced that the "sale" was temporary. So, what I was proposing isn't so radical or desperate as you think.
"Yeah, navigating a horse and buggy through 200,000+ people on Passover would get you there real quick."
==>As if they the Jews and Romans had no concept or use of roads. The Romans were known for roads, hence the saying, "All Roads lead to Rome." Also all 200,000 were not all gathered in one location. They would either be celebrating or preparing to celebrate a Holy Day. They WOULDN'T WANT to be on the road. If they were smart [and Jews are generally smart], they would have made most of their preparations days earlier. Much less would they be at crucifixion sites, or roads that lead to them. Also, the average Jew would know to give wide berth to oncoming Roman carts/horses [especially if he wanted to stay out of trouble]. Something similar with high ranking Jewish members of society. Joseph wasn't a "Joe Schmoe" [or "Joseph Schmoe" as the case may be <g>]. He was a religious leader (with identifiable religious clothing) whom people would give deference to. They would get out of his way. And if he had a cart, out of his cart's way [which would likely be elaborate enough for people to know he was important culturally and religiously].
"Begging the question by assuming Joseph knew Jesus' teaching. Mark doesn't tell us that. "
==>I wasn't begging the question because I wasn't asserting that as actually being true. I was pointing out that you're in no position to say that Joseph couldn't have known and applied it that way.
==>Regarding burial on a sabbath, it's not clear that the day in which Christ was crucified was a holy day or not. There was more than one sacred calendar that was being used by Jews at the time. Also, there was the option for some to celebrate the Passover early. Also, it's not clear whether Jesus' Last Supper was a Passover celebration, and if so, whether it was celebrated early or on (usual) time. I am convinced though that the crucifixion was on a Friday. I no longer hold to a Wednesday or even Thursday crucifixion. Some Jews observing one calendar might be able to make transactions with other people who were using either the same or a different calendar without violating their own sectarian interpretation and application of Jewish law.
"How does this salvage the timeline?"
==>Because if Joseph knew what usually happens during crucifixions, then he could have made preparations, plans and made decisions [e.g. purchases] earlier to save time.
Telescoping and condensing was an acceptable and expected practice when doing history at the time. Even traditional Inerrantists agree. But over and above the traditional Inerrantist position, I recommend the following video by Mike Licona on Gospel contradictions. His views are controversial to some because they see it as a rejection of Inerrancy. I don't. I think much of was Licona says is perfectly in keeping with a nuanced, further developed and sophisticated (rather than simplistic) understanding of Inerrancy. Again, to repeat, while I believe in inerrancy, I don't think the truth of Christianity hinges on its truth. Christianity could be true even if inerrancy is false. Here's the video by Licona.
https://youtu.be/xtemSTrkogE
Tommy Barker:
Sunset in Jerusalem is at 7pm in April. Joseph begins all the tasks around 6pm. Game over. https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/israel/jerusalem
//==>There is no scholarly consensus when the Passover was in relation to the day of Christ's crucifixion.//
So Mark 14:12 isn't referring to the Passover meal?
"On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
Mark 14:17-18
"When it was evening, he came with the twelve. And when they had taken their places and were eating,..."
"When it was evening" refers to the beginning of Passover. The next say (still Passover) Jesus is crucified.
//==>That assumes that you know Pilate was at his quarters or that he only had one location where he could or would stay to sleep or conduct business.//
If Pilate wasn't at his quarters then it would have taken even longer for Joseph to find out where he was and go there! Unless, you're assuming Joseph had Pilate's itinerary. No, Pilate was most likely at the praetorium.
ANNOYED PINOY:
" Sunset in Jerusalem is at 7pm in April. Joseph begins all the tasks around 6pm. "
==>You're reading Mark 15:42ff. in a woodenly literal way. Not the way the author intended. Mark 15:42b-46a is a preface and explanation of what happened before verse 46b. Meaning, what happened before evening and led up to Joseph taking Jesus' body off the cross. Notice how after mentioning how evening had come (15:42a) the author then gives an explanatory comment and preface with "since it was the day of Preparation" (15:42b), then the next phrase is ANOTHER explanation and preface, "that is, the day before the Sabbath" (15:42c). Then he refers to Joseph (15:43a), then gives ANOTHER explanation and preface with "a respected member of the Council" (15:43b), then gives ANOTHER explanation and preface "who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God" (15:43c). That's at least FOUR (!!!!) explanatory comments in a row. With all these explanatory prefaces, it's natural to interpret 15:43d to 15:46a as ALSO being explanatory comments and preface regarding what happened before evening. In other words, that Joseph went to see Pilate and purchased items before evening and the author of Mark includes that as a preface. They were all prefatory comments explaining how Joseph could remove the body without further ado. Otherwise, the Roman soldiers would have prohibited him from doing so. This type of description was a common literary convention at the time (by both Jewish and Gentiles writers). The NT and OT uses it all the time. The parallels in Matthew and Luke of the taking down of Jesus' body also read this way.
"So Mark 14:12 isn't referring to the Passover meal?"
==>The Passover day on one calendar would not necessarily correspond to the Passover day on the other calendar.
"If Pilate wasn't at his quarters then it would have taken even longer for Joseph to find out where he was and go there! Unless, you're assuming Joseph had Pilate's itinerary. No, Pilate was most likely at the praetorium."
==>If Pilate was not at the praetorium, then he would have been wherever he (and likely his predecessors) usually was during this time of the year. In which case Joseph could predictably know where Pilate was. He could have also asked some soldiers. There's nothing in the text that says Pilate was at the praetorium. That's your assumption. Personally, I think he was at the praetorium because I don't think Joseph met with Pilate after evening, but long before it (as explained above).
==>BTW, during all of posts I mostly confined myself to only using Mark. I barely mentioned the other Gospels because we were investigating the plausibility of Mark's story alone. Having said that, I could have used the other Gospels to defend the traditional theory. For example, regarding whether Joseph was doing all these things by himself, gJohn mentions how Nicodemus helped to take Jesus' body off the cross. Regarding the distance of the tomb from the crucifixion site I could have cited John 19:41 which says, " Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid." But since we're trying to examine the historical plausibility of Mark's narrative alone, appealing to the other Gospels would be cheating. Especially regarding John because many scholars think a lot of it is unhistorical and made up from whole cloth.
==> I probably won't be able to make more comments (if they're necessary) till next week. I'll be busy for the next few days.
Tommy Barker:
//==>You're reading Mark 15:42ff. in a woodenly literal way. Not the way the author intended. Mark 15:42b-46a is a preface and explanation of what happened before verse 46b. Meaning, what happened before evening and led up to Joseph taking Jesus' body off the cross. //
No, the Greek reads AFTER evening had already started is when Joseph begins his tasks. The overwhelming majority of translations render the passage this way. http://biblehub.com/mark/15-42.htm Mark (a gentile author?) seems unaware or doesn't care that he has Joseph bury Jesus on the Sabbath according to his chronology. 6pm corresponds to the three hour interval in Mark. Just as Mark's "morning" is 9am. "Evening" is 6pm.
//Notice how after mentioning how evening had come (15:42a) the author then gives an explanatory comment and preface with "since it was the day of Preparation" (15:42b), then the next phrase is another explanation and preface, "that is, the day before the Sabbath" (15:42c).//
Exactly. Which goes to show Mark is unaware that the Sabbath started right after sunset!
//==>The Passover day on one calendar would not necessarily correspond to the Passover day on the other calendar.//
So they aren't eating the Passover meal per Mark 14:12-18? Seriously? The natural reading of the text indicates that it WAS Passover.
//==>BTW, during all of posts I mostly confined myself to only using Mark. I barely mentioned the other Gospels because we were investigating the plausibility of Mark's story alone. Having said that, I could have used the other Gospels to defend the traditional theory.//
The other gospels omit and avoid Mark's errors. Mark is the earliest account though. Matthew and Luke just edited it.
ANNOYED PINOY:
"No, the Greek reads AFTER evening had already started is when Joseph begins his tasks"
==>I'm not denying that. That's assumed in my comments. Like when I wrote: "Mark 15:42b-46a is a preface and explanation of what happened before verse 46b." All that could be bracketed so that the author is saying at evening Joseph took Jesus' down. For example, a translator could translate it this way [using the ESV as a template]:
QUOTE:
And when evening had come, [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead.45 And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph.46 And Joseph bought a linen shroud, ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.
END QUOTE
"Mark (gentile author) seems unaware or doesn't care that he has Joseph bury Jesus on the Sabbath according to his chronology."
==>That assumes that Mark does have Joseph burying Jesus on the weekly Sabbath. I don't think he does, and you haven't demonstrated it.
"So they aren't eating the Passover meal per Mark 14:12-18? Seriously? The natural reading of the text indicates that it WAS Passover."
==>According to whose perspective? Mark's? Mark's audience? Jesus and the disciples? According to which calendar? Early or late observance? Mark's perspective could be different from Jesus' and his disciples'. Mark may have been using descriptions of the days that correspond to a particular calendar when in fact Jesus and the disciples were using a different one. Mark may have picked one calendar and used it to describe the events for simplicity's sake, and left it up to his readers to determine for themselves which calendar Jesus and the disciples might have been using. Since it was common knowledge that there were different calendars.
==> I notice that you didn't address the major hole I put into your theory. Namely, that there are 4 consecutive prefatory comments before Joseph is described as taking down Jesus body. Which makes it nearly certain that the author of gMark meant for us to take the comment about Joseph seeing Pilate and making purchases as having occurred BEFORE evening.
==>Here it is again, copy and pasted [with minor touch ups]:
QUOTE:Notice how after mentioning how evening had come (15:42a) the author then gives an explanatory comment and preface with "since it was the day of Preparation" (15:42b), then the next phrase is ***ANOTHER*** explanation and preface, "that is, the day before the Sabbath" (15:42c). Then he refers to Joseph (15:43a), then gives ***ANOTHER*** explanation and preface with "a respected member of the Council" (15:43b), then gives ***ANOTHER*** explanation and preface "who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God" (15:43c). That's at least FOUR (!!!!) explanatory comments in a row. With all these explanatory prefaces, it's natural to interpret 15:43d to 15:46a as ALSO being explanatory comments and preface regarding what happened before evening. In other words, that Joseph went to see Pilate and purchased items before evening and the author of Mark includes that as a preface. They were all prefatory comments explaining how Joseph could remove the body without further ado. Otherwise, the Roman soldiers would have prohibited him from doing so. END QUOTE
==>If I were an atheist, that would be my charitable interpretation. With all the things I could object to in gMark, this would not be one of them. In all honestly, I would give this one to the Christians because it's not only a possible and plausible reading, it's the likely correct reading as well.
==>BTW, even assuming that Jesus celebrated the Passover, and even assuming that it was unlawful for Joseph to purchase and bury Jesus during a (high or low) holy day, that doesn't mean Joseph couldn't possibly have done so. People do things contrary to the moral law or ceremonial law or civil law all the time. Joseph wasn't sinless. And as I said before, he could have had Gentiles doing the purchases. And Joseph, along with the other women [and anyone else like Nicodemus], could have felt justified in "breaking" holy day law to fulfill an act of mercy toward one whom they may have believed to be the "Lord of the Sabbath".
Notice that Samson is considered a Jewish hero despite his sins and ritual defilements. For example, there's a law against touching unclean animals, yet Samson took honey out of the carcass of a dead lion.
Or think of David who ate the consecrated holy bread [shewbread in the KJV] even though he was not a priest and it was unlawful for him to do so [1 Sam. 21].
Tommy Barker:
//==>I'm not denying that. That's assumed in my comments. Like when I wrote: "Mark 15:42b-46a is a preface and explanation of what happened before verse 46b." All that could be bracketed so that the author is saying at evening Joseph took Jesus' down. For example, a translator could translate it this way [using the ESV as a template]://
No one uses this ad hoc interpretation. You're only resorting to it as a last ditch effort to dodge the problem. The straightforward reading of the text has Joseph begin the tasks after evening had arrived. It DOES NOT SAY or even imply that he completed any of the tasks before evening.
//==>That assumes that Mark does have Joseph burying Jesus on the weekly Sabbath. I don't think he does, and you haven't demonstrated it.//
It's demonstrable due to the fact that completing all of those tasks within 1hr30min is physically impossible.
//==>According to whose perspective? Mark's? Mark's audience? Jesus and the disciples? According to which calendar? Early or late observance? Mark's perspective could be different from Jesus' and his disciples'. Mark may have been using descriptions of the days that correspond to a particular calendar when in fact Jesus and the disciples were using a different one. Mark may have picked one calendar and used it to describe the events for simplicity's sake, and left it up to his readers to determine for themselves which calendar Jesus and the disciples might have been using. Since it was common knowledge that there were different calendars.//
This is bullshit. Mark says it's the Passover meal and has them eat Passover that evening. Why would he say "where would you like us to prepare the Passover?" if Mark didn't intend to depict Passover? That makes no sense. You're tacitly admitting that Mark is wrong here and not reliable as a historical source.
//==> I notice that you didn't address the major hole I put into your theory. Namely, that there are 4 consecutive prefatory comments before Joseph is described as taking down Jesus body. Which makes it nearly certain that the author of gMark meant for us to take the comment about Joseph seeing Pilate and making purchases as having occurred BEFORE evening.//
That's because it doesn't deserve a response. Nothing in the text supports that Joseph did anything before evening. It EXPLICITLY says he started AFTER evening had arrived.
//That's at least FOUR (!!!!) explanatory comments in a row.//
A totally irrelevant non-sequitur. This is getting quite desperate.
//With all these explanatory prefaces, it's natural to interpret 15:43d to 15:46a as ALSO being explanatory comments and preface regarding what happened before evening.//
What verse says he did it before evening? Because 15:42 says AFTER evening had arrived he went to Pilate then ran the errands. You're trying to use Mark's explanation as to *who Joseph was* and somehow distort that as to meaning he did all the tasks before evening. This is pure ad hoc nonsense and as a consequence you're admitting that when the Markan text is read at face value the chronological problem exists. That's why you're resorting to a reading which no one even holds to.
//==>BTW, even assuming that Jesus celebrated the Passover, and even assuming that it was unlawful for Joseph to purchase and bury Jesus during a (high or low) holy day, that doesn't mean Joseph couldn't possibly have done so. People do things contrary to the moral law or ceremonial law or civil law all the time. Joseph wasn't sinless. And as I said before, he could have had Gentiles doing the purchases. And Joseph, along with the other women [and anyone else like Nicodemus], could have felt justified in "breaking" holy day law to fulfill an act of mercy toward one whom they may have believed to be the "Lord of the Sabbath".//
It's historically improbable that a distinguished member of the Sanhedrin would knowingly violate Jewish law.
ANNOYED PINOY:
"No one uses this ad hoc interpretation. You're only resorting to it as a last ditch effort to dodge the problem."
==>I've seen various commentaries interpreting it my way. Some even interpret "evening" as around 4 PM, not the approximate 6 PM that you're assuming. I used this argument late in our conversation because I didn't realize until then how you woodenly read the passage sequentially. Also, Jesus died at the 9th hour (i.e. 3 PM). If Joseph had already spoken to Pilate and purchased linen in advance, then that gives Joseph aprox. 3 hours to bury Jesus (assuming he started taking Jesus' body off the cross around 4 PM).
If you claim that there wasn't enough time is true, why isn't it a contradiction or discrepancy that's listed in the atheistic website "Skeptics Annotated Bible"? [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mk/15.html]
I'm not aware of it, but do you know of any other more prominent atheistic/skeptical/agnostic names who point to this alleged time discrepancy; whether Bart Ehrman, or Richard Carrier or Robert Price or John Loftus who argue this point?
Honestly, the timing doesn't seem to be problematic to me. What is more problematic is your objection that a "distinguished member of the Sanhedrin would knowingly violate Jewish law." I'll have to do more study on this. When it comes to whether Jesus' Last Supper was supposed to be a Passover celebration, I've always leaned toward it being so, but I'm not dogmatic. The issues involved are too deep for me to at this time to resolve (i.e. regarding the calendar, and early observance etc.).
Anyway, I've got a lot of things I need to do in the next few days. I used up too much time on this topic today. I've got to go. Thanks for the chat Tommy Barker.
Tommy Barker:
//If Joseph had already spoken to Pilate and purchased linen in advance//
The text says the exact opposite. There is literally zero support for Joseph doing any of this before evening.
ANNOYED PINOY:
I'm curious, do you read Mark 15:34-37 as saying Jesus died around the 9th hour? If so, what time would say that is in our modern measurements? Do you agree with me that Jesus died around 3 PM?
Tommy Barker:
Yes. Jesus is crucified at 9am. Darkness covers the land at noon. Jesus dies at 3pm. Then, after evening (6pm) had come, Joseph sets out to meet Pilate.
ANNOYED PINOY:
I see your chronology now. Okay. Thanks for the further clarification.
ANNOYED PINOY:
Do I have your permission to post this dialogue on my blog with your name changed to a pseudonym like Tommy Barker?
Tommy Barker:
Sure thing.
ANNOYED PINOY:
For your further reference, here's the link to the blog. If you see any typos that concern you, just private message me here on Facebook or post on my blog.
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2017/04/does-gospel-of-mark-provide-enough-time.html
ANNOYED PINOY:
My last question, then I really have to end the dialogue for now. You have the last word.
Assuming your chronology is correct, why do you think Joseph waited 3 hours to go and see Pilate? Or if you don't think this is generally historical, why do you think the author of Mark [who is making things up as he goes along] would have Joseph wait 3 hours? What was Joseph doing during those hours? Or what do you think Mark would have had Joseph doing?
Tommy Barker:
You have to keep in mind that this was Passover, or at least Mark intends to depict Friday as Passover. If that was the case then Joseph was most likely celebrating the festival just like any other Jew. He most likely wouldn't have attended a crucifixion. Unfortunately, Mark doesn't tell us how or when Joseph found out Jesus was dead but it must have been sometime between 3-6pm given the chronology.
Tommy Barker:
According to Mark's narrative Jesus must be buried "before the Sabbath." Joseph of Arimathea comes out of the woodwork to do the deed which seems to be in accordance with Jewish law - Deut. 21:23. Unfortunately, Mark does not leave enough room for Joseph to complete his sequence of events before the Sabbath as I will demonstrate below.
In Mk. 15:42 it says "when evening had come...as it was the day before the Sabbath." This most likely means it was around 6pm due to Mark's theme of 3 hour intervals in his narrative, Mk. 15:25 - Jesus is crucified at 9am, Mk. 15:33 - darkness covers the land at noon, Mk. 15:34 - Jesus dies at 3pm. Since word of Jesus' death would take time to travel to Joseph and Mark clearly has a theme of three hour intervals, around 6pm seems the most plausible timing for "evening" in Mk. 15:42.
Interestingly enough, Jewish "days" started at sundown not midnight, meaning that the Sabbath would begin around 7-8pm. So with the sequence of events, Mark unwittingly has Joseph bury Jesus on the Sabbath which would have been illegal. Oops. Mark seems unaware or doesn't care that Jewish days started at nightfall. It would be physically impossible for Joseph to complete all the tasks Mark depicts him doing between 6pm and sundown.
1. He has to go to Pilate and request to meet with him on the busiest day of the year (Passover) - Mk. 15:43.
2. Pilate has to summon the centurion and wait for him to confirm Jesus was dead - Mk. 15:44-45.
3. Joseph runs an errand to buy linen (which would have been illegal on Passover as no one was allowed to work or buy and sell goods on a festival day) - Mk. 15:46, Exodus 12:16, Leviticus 23:6-7, Nehemiah 10:31. Oops.
4. Joseph would have to travel to the site of crucifixion well outside the city.
5. Then he has to actually remove the body and take it to his "own" tomb which most likely would have been far away from the site of crucifixion. Mark does not say Joseph had any help.
This chronology of events clearly has Joseph burying Jesus on the Sabbath (nighttime) and as such can't be historical as far as Mark's timing between Passover and Sabbath goes.
So I'm wondering how people who view this as actual history explain this one?
ANNOYED PINOY:
Someone else posted this in a Christian FB group. Here's my answer (with minor changes):
There is no "theme" of 3 hour intervals. Mark is just giving the general time. It's like driving 298 miles and when asked, saying "I drove 300 miles".
"Since word of Jesus' death would take time to travel to Joseph and Mark clearly has a theme of three hour intervals..."
Why would it have taken time if they were one of the witnesses to the crucifixion? That's not to say that they were watching all that time. They probably knew the Roman practice of breaking people's legs on crosses to make sure they died before the beginning of a major Jewish holy day. So, there need not be a major delay.
"1. He has to go to Pilate and request to meet with him on the busiest day of the year (Passover) - Mk. 15:43."
Joseph was a "respected member of the Council" according to Mark 15:43. He would probably have been among those Jewish leaders whom Pilate would have granted a quick audience. W.L. Craig points out that in 26 AD/CE Pilate eventually relented when the Jews were willing to die rather than have Roman Standards remain standing in Israel. Roman Standards were considered idols to the Jews. Pilate saw that a general riot was about to break out and so changed his mind to keep the peace. He had the standards removed. See this video of W.L. Craig: https://youtu.be/i8FNTRvJjMc?t=10m42s. Pilate would have learned his lesson by the time of Christ's crucifixion.
"2. Pilate has to summon the centurion and wait for him to confirm Jesus was dead - Mk. 15:44-45."
Why couldn't the centurion have been nearby? Why must he have been far away?
As someone else said, "Also I don't think we need to have the Centurion leave go check on the body and come back he may have already witness the death of Christ and simply just reported it or verified it to Pilot."
"3. Joseph runs an errand to buy linen (which would have been illegal on Passover as no one was allowed to work or buy and sell goods on a festival day) - Mk. 15:46, Exodus 12:16, Leviticus 23:6-7, Nehemiah 10:31. Oops."
Not if the purchases happened before sunset. Joseph almost certainly had different servants who did his multiple bidding. Even without appealing to the Jewish concept of shaliah (i.e. the legal agent/emissary/representative), it's perfectly common today for someone to say they bought X even though it was someone else in the household who literally and actually did it.
Some of the purchases may have happened before Christ's actual death. Joseph might have planned in advance and told servants to make such purchases. Mark 15:46 only says that Joseph had bought a linen shroud. It doesn't tell us when it was purchased or that it was definitely purchased after Jesus' died. Why wait afterward if you knew the Romans were determined to make sure everyone on crosses would be dead before sunset that day (before the beginning of a major Jewish Holy Day)? That's just stupid.
"4. Joseph would have to travel to the site of crucifixion well outside the city."
Who said it's WELL outside the city? The skeptic is inserting that into the story.
"5. Then he has to actually remove the body and take it to his "own" tomb which most likely would have been far away from the site of crucifixion. Mark does not say Joseph had any help."
It's an assumption that the tomb was far away. Also, being a respected member of the Council suggests he was old. An old man with authority who probably was wealthy and respected is unlikely to have taken the body of Christ off the cross and carried it to the far away tomb by himself. The text doesn't mention a donkey, horse, camel or shoes either. I guess Joseph must have carried Jesus' body on his shoulders and walked barefoot the entire 100 miles to the tomb all by himself too, huh? [That was sarcasm BTW]
"This chronology of events clearly has Joseph burying Jesus on the Sabbath (nighttime) and as such can't be historical as far as Mark's timing between Passover and Sabbath goes."
Nowhere has this skeptic proven this. All he's done is piece together worse case possibilities and claimed they were likely to have happened.
But EVEN IF it occurred at night, so what? If Joseph was a secret disciple of Christ he may have applied Jesus' teaching about works of mercy during the sabbath and applied it to Jesus' burial. By mercy on the sabbath I'm talking about Jesus' teaching about healing on the sabbath (Mark 3), plucking small amounts of grain for food on the sabbath (Mark 2). If Joseph believed Jesus to be the "Lord of the Sabbath" as Jesus claimed in Mark 2 (of which Joseph might have heard about), then it would be perfectly permissible for the Lord of the Sabbath to have had exceptions performed in His situation.
Finally, Jesus' death and resurrection doesn't depend or hinge on the truth of Biblical inerrancy (even though I believe it). So, even if everything the skeptic claims is true, big deal.
Tommy Barker:
//There is no "theme" of 3 hour intervals. Mark is just giving the general time.//
But the events are clearly divided into 3 hour intervals so there still could be a theme. I see no reason to believe your confident assertion more probable. Regardless, evening in Mk. 15:42 would have been around 6pm because that's when "evening" is.
//Why would it have taken time if they were one of the witnesses to the crucifixion?//
Because they would have to travel and tell Joseph Jesus was dead. Duh! It does not say Joseph was just standing there watching. It says the women watched from afar and there is no evidence anyone other than the centurion knew Jesus was dead. All we're told is that Joseph magically finds out Jesus died somehow.
//Joseph was a "respected member of the Council" according to Mark 15:43.//
Respected by the Jews perhaps but the Romans couldn't care less.
//He would probably have been among those Jewish leaders whom Pilate would have granted a quick audience.//
Lol! Yeah, I'm sure Pilate dropped whatever he was doing on the busiest day of the year to go talk to a Jew upon his immediate request. Sorry, this is just an unfounded assertion. It would still take time to seek out Pilate and request to meet with him. It's not finger snapping magic.
//Pilate eventually relented when the Jews were willing to die rather than have Roman Standards remain standing in Israel. //
What does this have to do with the OP?
For context:
Josephus tells us when Pilate first came into Jerusalem, he had stationed around town the Roman standards, which had an image of the emperor embellished on them. When the Jews of Jerusalem saw the standards in the morning, they were outraged: no images were allowed in the holy city, as suggested in the law of Moses, let alone images of a foreign ruler who was worshiped elsewhere as a god. A Jewish crowd appeared to Pilate at his palace in Caesarea and demanded that he remove the standards, leading to a standoff that lasted five days. Pilate had no interest at all in bowing to Jewish demands (contrast the stories of Jesus’s trial in the Gospels!). On the contrary, at the end of the five days he directed his troops to surround the Jewish protestors, three rows deep, and cut them to shreds. Rather than backing down, the Jews to a person reached out their necks and told the soldiers to do their utmost. They would rather die than cave in. Pilate realized that he could not murder such masses in cold blood and, “surprised at their prodigious superstition,” ordered the standards removed (Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.1).
Josephus also tells us when Pilate wanted to build an aqueduct to provide freshwater to Jerusalem he financed the project by raiding the sacred treasury of the temple. The authorities and the people were outraged and protested loudly. Pilate responded by having his soldiers mix in with the crowds, disguised, to attack the people, not with swords but with clubs, at his command. They did so, and “many” of the Jews were killed in the onslaught, and many others were trampled to death in the tumult that followed (Antiquities 18.3.2).
//Why couldn't the centurion have been nearby? Why must he have been far away?//
Does it say he was nearby? How do you know he wasn't still at his post watching the crucifixion victims? Regardless, tracking down and summoning the exact centurion would take time especially on Passover due to the amount of people in the city.
//As someone else said, "Also I don't think we need to have the Centurion leave go check on the body and come back he may have already witness the death of Christ and simply just reported it or verified it to Pilot."//
Why don't you read more stuff into the text that isn't there?
//Not if the purchases happened before sunset.//
Wrong. Working and selling stuff was forbidden on Passover. Friday was Passover, the day Jesus was killed according to Mark.
//Joseph almost certainly had different servants who did his multiple bidding. Even without appealing to the Jewish concept of shaliah (i.e. the legal agent/emissary/representative), it's perfectly common today for someone to say they bought X even though it was someone else in the household who literally and actually did it.//
This is irrelevant because buying an item implies that someone was working and selling it on Passover which was forbidden. Passover rules were almost as strict as Sabbath observation.
//Some of the purchases may have happened before Christ's actual death. Joseph might have planned in advance and told servants to make such purchases. Mark 15:46 only says that Joseph had bought a linen shroud. It doesn't tell us when it was purchased or that it was definitely purchased after Jesus' died. Why wait afterward if you knew the Romans were determined to make sure everyone on crosses would be dead before sunset that day (before the beginning of a major Jewish Holy Day)? That's just stupid.//
Lol! No, it says "then he bought the linen" indicating a chronological order of events. Gosh, this is getting tiresome.
//Who said it's WELL outside the city? The skeptic is inserting that into the story.//
The site of crucifixion was at least outside the city walls. My source says it was 2 miles from Pilate's praetorium which would take 30 min walking at a brisk pace.
//It's an assumption that the tomb was far away.//
You think the rich and "distinguished counselor" Joseph of Arimathea had his burial plot near the gruesome site of crucifixion? Think again.
//Also, being a respected member of the Council suggests he was old. An old man with authority who probably was wealthy and respected is unlikely to have taken the body of Christ off the cross and carried it to the far away tomb by himself. The text doesn't mention a donkey, horse, camel or shoes either. I guess Joseph must have carried Jesus' body on his shoulders and walked barefoot the entire 100 miles to the tomb all by himself too, huh? [That was sarcasm BTW]//
While that's plausible in real life, Mark says Joseph did it all.
//Nowhere has this skeptic proven this. All he's done is piece together worse case possibilities and claimed they were likely to have happened.//
It's pretty demonstrable and I'm going by what Mark says without reading anything in. Joseph starts his tasks around evening 6pm. Sunset is around 7pm. That makes nightfall around 7:30pm. It's physically impossible to complete all those tasks before nightfall even when being generous with the timing.
//But EVEN IF it occurred at night, so what?//
It's against Jewish law and most likely wouldn't have happened as depicted in the narrative.
//If Joseph was a secret disciple of Christ he may have applied Jesus' teaching about works of mercy during the sabbath and applied it to Jesus' burial. By mercy on the sabbath I'm talking about Jesus' teaching about healing on the sabbath (Mark 3), plucking small amounts of grain for food on the sabbath (Mark 2). If Joseph believed Jesus to be the "Lord of the Sabbath" as Jesus claimed in Mark 2 (of which Joseph might have heard about), then it would be perfectly permissible for the Lord of the Sabbath to have had exceptions performed in His situation.//
You're getting the "secret disciple" Joseph from a later source, not Mark. Eating when you're hungry and healing/saving a life aren't considered "work" by Jesus in those passages and are therefore permissible. Burial on the Sabbath, on the other hand, would still be seen as work and thus prohibited.
//Finally, Jesus' death and resurrection doesn't depend or hinge on the truth of Biblical inerrancy (even though I believe it). So, even if everything the skeptic claims is true, big deal.//
Pfff.
ANNOYED PINOY:
Tommy Barker My comments will have this type of arrow ==>
==>You write as if the burden of proof is on people like me who beileve there was enough time. When, in fact, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence and reasons why there could not (BY ANY POSSIBILITY) be enough time. You're the one making the postive assertion. It seems to me that I and others have poked enough holes in your argument to drive a semi-truck though. You probably can do so, so I ask you, "Can you list for me reputable scholars who believe there wasn't enough time for the events recorded by Mark to have transpired?"
"Because they would have to travel and tell Joseph Jesus was dead. Duh! It does not say Joseph was just standing there watching. It says the women watched from afar and there is no evidence anyone other than the centurion knew Jesus was dead. All we're told is that Joseph magically finds out Jesus died somehow"
==>The burden of proof is on you to show that Joseph COULDN'T have been standing there or have been going to and from the crucifixion site. On the approach of such a major Jewish Holy Day the Romans would have made sure that the bodies would haved died and taken off the crosses before sunset. The Jews would have also known that the Romans try to accomodate them on their belief that it would defile the land (John 19:31//Deut. 21:23).
"Respected by the Jews perhaps but the Romans couldn't care less."
==>Another baseless and unargued for assumption. Remember, you have the burden of making it impossible for there to have been enough time.
"Lol! Yeah, I'm sure Pilate dropped whatever he was doing on the busiest day of the year to go talk to a Jew upon his immediate request."
==> And why would it be so busy? Because the Romans were planning a party? No, because they had to attend to all the stuff that accompanies Jewish Holy Days. You think they're going to intentionally be less organized, disciplined and efficient during such a time?
"Does it say he was nearby? How do you know he wasn't still at his post watching the crucifixion victims? "
==>Again the burden of proof is on you. Not me. Are you claiming it was impossible for the centurion to be nearby? If I were an atheist I would be so much more charitable in reading the Gospel account. Especially in order not to make me look like a fanatic who's got an axe to grind that I have to postulate the worst case senarios.
"Wrong. Working and selling stuff was forbidden on Passover. Friday was Passover, the day Jesus was killed according to Mark."
==>It's not clear which day was Passover. Also, are you saying that Joseph or his servants could not have purchased materials from Gentiles who have no qualms about selling on or near a Jewish Holy day?
"This is irrelevant because buying an item implies that someone was working and selling it on Passover which was forbidden. Passover rules were almost as strict as Sabbath observation."
==> So, Joseph couldn't have had Gentile servants who bought from Gentile sellers? Similar to how Manicheans would have non-Manicheans do their "dirty work"? Jews didn't think the Sabbath was binding on Gentiles and therefore Joseph wouldn't have been encouraging Gentiles to sin by make such purchases.
"Lol! No, it says "then he bought the linen" indicating a chronological order of events. Gosh, this is getting tiresome."
==> I'm not a Greek scholar, so I can't be certain of the following. Someone else said in another group: "Joseph did not have to run an illegal errand to buy linen; the Greek for “bought” is an aorist particle, which means he did it at an unspecified time before the described action – which means he could have bought it days earlier."
"The site of crucifixion was at least outside the city walls. My source says it was 2 miles from Pilate's praetorium which would take 30 min walking at a brisk pace."
==> So, because it doesn't mention that Joseph used a cart or horse he couldn't have gone with his servants on a cart? You mean to tell me an elderly wealthy, respected man with clout would choose to walk when he knew he was pressed for time? Really? Don't you see how irrationally desperate your attempts are to debunk the narrative?
"You think the rich man Joseph of Arimathea had his burial plot near the gruesome site of crucifixion? Think again."
==>So, you admit he's rich. But not rich enough to have servants and horses and carts to take him quickly from here to there? The internal consistency of your hypothetical is seriously lacking.
"While that's plausible in real life, Mark says Joseph did it all."
==> John 19:1 says, "Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him." Even assuming this never happened, do you really think the author of gJohn meant for us think that Pilate PERSONALLY flogged Jesus? Of course not. Such language is understood to mean Pilate gave the order to do so. Representational language was an understood given in the 1st century. That's why even though I mentioned the principle of Shaliah, I didn't think I had to employ it. Moving from gJohn to gMark..... Mark 15:15 says, QUOTE: "So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified." END QUOTE. Using your (flawed) exegesis, I guess Pilate PERSONALLY released Barabbas, Pilate PERSONALLY scourged Jesus, and Pilate PERSONALLY delivered Jesus to be crucified.
"You're getting the "secret disciple" Joseph from a later source, not Mark."
==> My poking holes in your hypothetical doesn't depend on whether Joseph was a secret or public disciple.
"Eating when you're hungry and healing/saving a life aren't considered "work" by Jesus in those passages and are therefore permissible. Burial on the Sabbath, on the other hand, would still be seen as work and thus prohibited."
==>You're pulling that out of nowhere. How do you know that Joseph couldn't have interpreted Jesus' teaching that way? All three activities that are being compared have to do with the Sabbath. You seem to be committing the Special Pleading fallacy. Also, Joseph could have heard of the story of the woman who anointed Jesus and interpreted it and applied it in the way I suggested.
"6 But Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me.8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial.9 And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."-Mark 14:6-9
Also, if it was the practice of the Romans to break the legs of crucifixion victims in order not to needlessly offend Jewish sensibilities, then wouldn't they have done so early enough so that Jews could deal with bodies in a TIMELY manner? Meaning, giving them enough time to deal with the dead. Was Jesus the first and only beloved victim of crucifixion?
Had Joseph never heard of the details of crucifixion before? Was it impossible for him to exercise any advanced foresight? IMPOSSIBLE? Really?
Tommy Barker:
//==>You write as if the burden of proof is on people like me who beileve there was enough time. When, in fact, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence and reasons why there could not (BY ANY POSSIBILITY) be enough time. You're the one making the postive assertion. It seems to me that I and others have poked enough holes in your argument to drive a semi-truck though.//
Your objections were really bad and consist of ad hoc wishful thinking. All of those tasks would be physically impossible to complete between 6pm and nightfall.
//You probably can do so, so I ask you, "Can you list for me reputable scholars who believe there wasn't enough time for the events recorded by Mark to have transpired?"//
JK Aldrich, Johannes Schreiber are a couple that I've read who bring up something similar. https://books.google.com/books?id=cSVNH95ckNUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA71#v=onepage&q&f=false
//The burden of proof is on you to show that Joseph COULDN'T have been standing there or have been going to and from the crucifixion site.//
1. There is no evidence that Joseph was at the site of crucifixion.
2. Therefore, he was at the site of crucifixion.
What kind of logic is that? If you want to claim that he was at the site of crucifixion then he still would have had to travel inside the city to Pilate's quarters after evening had arrived so that doesn't really help you get out of the chronological quagmire.
//On the approach of such a major Jewish Holy Day the Romans would have made sure that the bodies would haved died and taken off the crosses before sunset. The Jews would have also known that the Romans try to accomodate them on their belief that it would defile the land (John 19:31//Deut. 21:23).//
Oh, so now all of a sudden Jewish law and beliefs become important when your first reply made it sound like following Jewish law was no big deal? Yeah, ok. First of all, this is false as the Romans did not care about Jewish sensitivities. Secondly, it's irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the problems in Mark's chronology.
//==>Another baseless and unargued for assumption. Remember, you have the burden of making it impossible for there to have been enough time.//
You made the claim that Joseph would have been respected by the Roman authorities. Care to demonstrate that?
//==> And why would it be so busy? Because the Romans were planning a party? No, because they had to attend to all the stuff that accompanies Jewish Holy Days. You think they're going to intentionally be less organized, disciplined and efficient during such a time?//
Well, security was probably a concern. Managing 200,000+ people and such. Surely, there would have been other issues arise on such a busy day. Any way you cut it, 30 min to 1 hour is a conservative amount of time it would take for Joseph to travel to and meet with Pilate. That would have almost been sundown already.
//Again the burden of proof is on you. Not me. Are you claiming it was impossible for the centurion to be nearby?//
1. There is no evidence the centurion was nearby.
2. Therefore, he was nearby.
Where did you learn this shitty fallacious reasoning?
It says the centurion had to be "summoned" meaning he was at some other location and would have to be tracked down. We have no reason to believe he had even left his post at the crucifixion site. So that would mean someone would have to walk to the site and back with the centurion. That would at least take another hour.
//==>It's not clear which day was Passover.//
They eat the Passover (Seder) meal the previous evening (Thursday night). Jesus is crucified the next morning. Therefore, Passover lasted from Thursday night until Friday night upon which the Sabbath commenced.
//Also, are you saying that Joseph or his servants could not have purchased materials from Gentiles who have no qualms about selling on or near a Jewish Holy day?//
Nehemiah 10:31
"When the neighboring peoples bring merchandise or grain to sell on the Sabbath, we will not buy from them on the Sabbath or on any *holy day.* Every seventh year we will forgo working the land and will cancel all debts."
Oops.
//==> So, Joseph couldn't have had Gentile servants who bought from Gentile sellers? Similar to how Manicheans would have non-Manicheans do their "dirty work"? Jews didn't think the Sabbath was binding on Gentiles and therefore Joseph wouldn't have been encouraging Gentiles to sin by make such purchases.//
Wow, you got anything left on the bottom of that barrel you're scraping? jesus christ.
//==> I'm not a Greek scholar, so I can't be certain of the following. Someone else said in another group: "Joseph did not have to run an illegal errand to buy linen; the Greek for “bought” is an aorist particle, which means he did it at an unspecified time before the described action – which means he could have bought it days earlier."//
Unfortunately, the straightforward reading of the text represents a chronological sequence of events, one happening right after the other. Reading it any other way strains the text out of desperation.
//==> So, because it doesn't mention that Joseph used a cart or horse he couldn't have gone with his servants on a cart? You mean to tell me an elderly wealthy, respected man with clout would choose to walk when he knew he was pressed for time? Really? Don't you see how irrationally desperate your attempts are to debunk the narrative?//
Yeah, navigating a horse and buggy through 200,000+ people on Passover would get you there real quick. In any case, by the time Joseph sets out on his "cart" it's 8pm by a conservative estimate. That's already nighttime dude.
//==>So, you admit he's rich. But not rich enough to have servants and horses and carts to take him quickly from here to there? The internal consistency of your hypothetical is seriously lacking.//
No, it's plausible that he had help, however, Mark gives no evidence for that but instead only mentions "he" did all the tasks. But like I said, even with help he's still burying Jesus on the Sabbath which would have been forbidden.
//==> John 19:1 says, "Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him." Even assuming this never happened, do, you really think the author of gJohn meant for us think that Pilate PERSONALLY flogged Jesus?...//
I already granted that Joseph may have or even most likely would have had help. But it doesn't matter as It would have already been nighttime before they had arrived on scene. You'd think his helpers would let him know that burying people on the Sabbath was forbidden by God. Oops.
//==> My poking holes in your hypothetical doesn't depend on whether Joseph was a secret or public disciple.//
It's Mark's chronology that has more holes than a pin cushion. My critique remains unchallenged.
//==>You're pulling that out of nowhere.//
No i'm not. It was forbidden to do any type of "work" on the Sabbath and also forbidden to touch a corpse, let alone bury anyone -m. Sabb 23.5.
//How do you know that Joseph couldn't have interpreted Jesus' teaching that way?//
Begging the question by assuming Joseph knew Jesus' teaching. Mark doesn't tell us that.
//All three activities that are being compared have to do with the Sabbath. You seem to be commiting the Special Pleading fallacy. Also, Joseph could have heard of the story of the woman who annointed Jesus and interpreted it and applied it in the way I suggested.//
Irrelevant. Burying people on the Sabbath was against Jewish law and most likely a "distinguished counselor" wouldn't do that.
//Also, if it was the practice of the Romans to break the legs of crucifixion victims in order not to needlessly offend Jewish sensitivities, then wouldn't they have done so early enough so that Jews could deal with bodies in a TIMELY manner? Meaning, giving them enough time to deal with the dead. Was Jesus the first and only beloved victim of crucifixion?//
The point of crucifixion was to have the person suffer and refuse them a proper burial. Most victims were left up on the cross to rot then their remains would have been thrown in pits. This is irrelevant though since Joseph doesn't start any of his tasks until around 6pm.
//Had Joseph never heard of the details of crucifixion before? Was it impossible for him to exercise any advanced foresight? IMPOSSIBLE? Really?//
How does this salvage the timeline?
ANNOYED PINOY:
"All of those tasks would be physically impossible to complete between 6pm and nightfall."
==> Your argument is like a bicycle chain with smaller circular links, and where the chain itself links to itself end to end. The nature of your claim/hypothetical is such that it if one link is weak the entire chain breaks. Yet, I've shown the weakness of a number of your links.
"JK Aldrich, Johannes Schreiber are a couple that I've read who bring up something similar...."
==> Thanks for the references.
"1. There is no evidence that Joseph was at the site of crucifixion.
2. Therefore, he was at the site of crucifixion. "
==>That's a strawman representation. I don't claim, nor does my thesis depend on Joseph being at the crucifixion the entire time. My point was that YOU don't know how long or how often Joseph was at the crucifixion site. Since the text doesn't tell us, you're inserting (via eisegesis) a lack of time that you could in no way logically infer necssarily (or even probably).
" If you want to claim that he was at the site of crucifixion then he still would have had to travel inside the city to Pilate's quarters after evening had arrived so that doesn't really help you get out of the chronological quagmire."
==>That assumes that you know Pilate was at his quarters or that he only had one location where he could or would stay to sleep or conduct business.
"Oh, so now all of a sudden Jewish law and beliefs become important when your first reply made it sound like following Jewish law was no big deal. "
==>I was referring to the ROMAN practice of being sensitive of Jewish beliefs. Secondly, when I implied that Joseph may have been less strict regarding Jewish practice, that was regarding the the hypothetical that I granted for the sake of argument. Namely, that you were right and there was not enough time. On the one hand I argued against the entirety your hypothesis, then on the other hand I later addressed your hypothesis as if the majority of it were true.
" First of all, this is false as the Romans did not care about Jewish sensitivities."
==>But you granted that Pilate was sometimes willing to relent if it would prevent a riot. The previous prefects before Pilate were wise enough not to set up Roman Standards. It was Pilate's inexperience in ruling in that area that lead to his mistake of setting them up. Another example would be the Romans not entering the Temple area which was restricted to the Jews. There were many things the Romans did to accomodate and/or appease the Jews. They learned the lessons from the Greeks and Alexander the Great on how not to unnecessarily antagonize the natives they ruled over. If Pilate didn't care at all about accomodating/appeasing the Jews then he wouldn't have released Barabbas (Mark 15:7-15).
"You made the claim that Joseph would have been respected by the Roman authorities. Care to demonstrate that?"
==>Respected enough to meet Joseph. You grant (at least ad arguendo) that Pilate met with Joseph. So, the question that remains is how quickly was he willing or able to do so. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to show that it would have been impossible for it to have been quick. Yet, nothing in the story [even if taken as fiction] requires that.
"Any way you cut it, 30 min to 1 hour is a conservative amount of time it would take for Joseph to travel to and meet with Pilate. That would have almost been sundown already."
==>You're pulling that out of thin air. This was the springtime. The days were already getting longer and sunset was being push further and further back. If you combined all of the holes I've placed into your theory, that would have provided plenty of time for all of it to have been accomplished. Notice that the author of gMark was himself aware that time was of the essence. It's not like he was oblivious to the fact that Joseph had a limited amount of time to get everything done. In fact, the author repeatedly and consciously alludes to that.
"1. There is no evidence the centurion was nearby.
2. Therefore, he was nearby.
Where did you learn this shitty fallacious reasoning?"
==>That's a strawman representation. I never argued that. You're the one who would have to argue that he WASN'T nearby. Since you're making the assertion and the stronger claim that there couldn't be enough time. All I need to do is provide possible or plausible hypothetical scenarios that undermine your position.
"It says the centurion had to be "summoned" meaning he was at some other location. "
==>Why couldn't this location be as near as a block away? You're the one who needs it to be far away, yet nothing in the narrative requires that.
"We have no reason to believe he hadn't even left his post at the crucifixion site."
==> And we have no reason to believe he remained there. Pilate was surprised that Jesus died so quickly. That means Jesus died sooner than the other crucifixion victims. That would have given Joseph more time than if he had to wait till Jesus slowly died from having his legs broken. You don't know all the duties and freedoms of a centurion. Yet your case requires him to have duties which lengthen the time it takes to get them done. You have to remember that centurions were in positions of leadership and authority. The name itself, centurion, comes from the word for 100. He had 100 men under him whom he could command. You argue as if he were a regular rank and file soldier who had to do everything by himself.
"So that would mean someone would have to walk to the site and back with the centurion. That would at least take another hour."
==>I guess Roman Centurions didn't have horses or chariots or carts. They had to walk everywhere like blind beggars. Seriously? And I guess the Romans also didn't have elaborate methods of communication. For example, the use of pigeons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_post
"They eat the Passover (Seder) meal the previous evening before (Thursday night). Jesus is crucified the next morning. Therefore, Passover lasted from Thursday night until Friday night upon which the Sabbath commenced."
==>There is no scholarly consensus when the Passover was in relation to the day of Christ's crucifixion.
"Wow, you got anything left on the bottom of that barrel you're scraping? jesus christ."
==>Loophole transactions are not uncommon in different Jewish historical periods. For example, there are times when Jews might "sell" their leavened materials to their Gentile neighbors for the duration of the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread. After which the Gentile friend would sell the leavened material back to them. The Gentile friend knew in advanced that the "sale" was temporary. So, what I was proposing isn't so radical or desperate as you think.
"Yeah, navigating a horse and buggy through 200,000+ people on Passover would get you there real quick."
==>As if they the Jews and Romans had no concept or use of roads. The Romans were known for roads, hence the saying, "All Roads lead to Rome." Also all 200,000 were not all gathered in one location. They would either be celebrating or preparing to celebrate a Holy Day. They WOULDN'T WANT to be on the road. If they were smart [and Jews are generally smart], they would have made most of their preparations days earlier. Much less would they be at crucifixion sites, or roads that lead to them. Also, the average Jew would know to give wide berth to oncoming Roman carts/horses [especially if he wanted to stay out of trouble]. Something similar with high ranking Jewish members of society. Joseph wasn't a "Joe Schmoe" [or "Joseph Schmoe" as the case may be <g>]. He was a religious leader (with identifiable religious clothing) whom people would give deference to. They would get out of his way. And if he had a cart, out of his cart's way [which would likely be elaborate enough for people to know he was important culturally and religiously].
"Begging the question by assuming Joseph knew Jesus' teaching. Mark doesn't tell us that. "
==>I wasn't begging the question because I wasn't asserting that as actually being true. I was pointing out that you're in no position to say that Joseph couldn't have known and applied it that way.
==>Regarding burial on a sabbath, it's not clear that the day in which Christ was crucified was a holy day or not. There was more than one sacred calendar that was being used by Jews at the time. Also, there was the option for some to celebrate the Passover early. Also, it's not clear whether Jesus' Last Supper was a Passover celebration, and if so, whether it was celebrated early or on (usual) time. I am convinced though that the crucifixion was on a Friday. I no longer hold to a Wednesday or even Thursday crucifixion. Some Jews observing one calendar might be able to make transactions with other people who were using either the same or a different calendar without violating their own sectarian interpretation and application of Jewish law.
"How does this salvage the timeline?"
==>Because if Joseph knew what usually happens during crucifixions, then he could have made preparations, plans and made decisions [e.g. purchases] earlier to save time.
Telescoping and condensing was an acceptable and expected practice when doing history at the time. Even traditional Inerrantists agree. But over and above the traditional Inerrantist position, I recommend the following video by Mike Licona on Gospel contradictions. His views are controversial to some because they see it as a rejection of Inerrancy. I don't. I think much of was Licona says is perfectly in keeping with a nuanced, further developed and sophisticated (rather than simplistic) understanding of Inerrancy. Again, to repeat, while I believe in inerrancy, I don't think the truth of Christianity hinges on its truth. Christianity could be true even if inerrancy is false. Here's the video by Licona.
https://youtu.be/xtemSTrkogE
Tommy Barker:
Sunset in Jerusalem is at 7pm in April. Joseph begins all the tasks around 6pm. Game over. https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/israel/jerusalem
//==>There is no scholarly consensus when the Passover was in relation to the day of Christ's crucifixion.//
So Mark 14:12 isn't referring to the Passover meal?
"On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, his disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
Mark 14:17-18
"When it was evening, he came with the twelve. And when they had taken their places and were eating,..."
"When it was evening" refers to the beginning of Passover. The next say (still Passover) Jesus is crucified.
//==>That assumes that you know Pilate was at his quarters or that he only had one location where he could or would stay to sleep or conduct business.//
If Pilate wasn't at his quarters then it would have taken even longer for Joseph to find out where he was and go there! Unless, you're assuming Joseph had Pilate's itinerary. No, Pilate was most likely at the praetorium.
ANNOYED PINOY:
" Sunset in Jerusalem is at 7pm in April. Joseph begins all the tasks around 6pm. "
==>You're reading Mark 15:42ff. in a woodenly literal way. Not the way the author intended. Mark 15:42b-46a is a preface and explanation of what happened before verse 46b. Meaning, what happened before evening and led up to Joseph taking Jesus' body off the cross. Notice how after mentioning how evening had come (15:42a) the author then gives an explanatory comment and preface with "since it was the day of Preparation" (15:42b), then the next phrase is ANOTHER explanation and preface, "that is, the day before the Sabbath" (15:42c). Then he refers to Joseph (15:43a), then gives ANOTHER explanation and preface with "a respected member of the Council" (15:43b), then gives ANOTHER explanation and preface "who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God" (15:43c). That's at least FOUR (!!!!) explanatory comments in a row. With all these explanatory prefaces, it's natural to interpret 15:43d to 15:46a as ALSO being explanatory comments and preface regarding what happened before evening. In other words, that Joseph went to see Pilate and purchased items before evening and the author of Mark includes that as a preface. They were all prefatory comments explaining how Joseph could remove the body without further ado. Otherwise, the Roman soldiers would have prohibited him from doing so. This type of description was a common literary convention at the time (by both Jewish and Gentiles writers). The NT and OT uses it all the time. The parallels in Matthew and Luke of the taking down of Jesus' body also read this way.
"So Mark 14:12 isn't referring to the Passover meal?"
==>The Passover day on one calendar would not necessarily correspond to the Passover day on the other calendar.
"If Pilate wasn't at his quarters then it would have taken even longer for Joseph to find out where he was and go there! Unless, you're assuming Joseph had Pilate's itinerary. No, Pilate was most likely at the praetorium."
==>If Pilate was not at the praetorium, then he would have been wherever he (and likely his predecessors) usually was during this time of the year. In which case Joseph could predictably know where Pilate was. He could have also asked some soldiers. There's nothing in the text that says Pilate was at the praetorium. That's your assumption. Personally, I think he was at the praetorium because I don't think Joseph met with Pilate after evening, but long before it (as explained above).
==>BTW, during all of posts I mostly confined myself to only using Mark. I barely mentioned the other Gospels because we were investigating the plausibility of Mark's story alone. Having said that, I could have used the other Gospels to defend the traditional theory. For example, regarding whether Joseph was doing all these things by himself, gJohn mentions how Nicodemus helped to take Jesus' body off the cross. Regarding the distance of the tomb from the crucifixion site I could have cited John 19:41 which says, " Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid." But since we're trying to examine the historical plausibility of Mark's narrative alone, appealing to the other Gospels would be cheating. Especially regarding John because many scholars think a lot of it is unhistorical and made up from whole cloth.
==> I probably won't be able to make more comments (if they're necessary) till next week. I'll be busy for the next few days.
Tommy Barker:
//==>You're reading Mark 15:42ff. in a woodenly literal way. Not the way the author intended. Mark 15:42b-46a is a preface and explanation of what happened before verse 46b. Meaning, what happened before evening and led up to Joseph taking Jesus' body off the cross. //
No, the Greek reads AFTER evening had already started is when Joseph begins his tasks. The overwhelming majority of translations render the passage this way. http://biblehub.com/mark/15-42.htm Mark (a gentile author?) seems unaware or doesn't care that he has Joseph bury Jesus on the Sabbath according to his chronology. 6pm corresponds to the three hour interval in Mark. Just as Mark's "morning" is 9am. "Evening" is 6pm.
//Notice how after mentioning how evening had come (15:42a) the author then gives an explanatory comment and preface with "since it was the day of Preparation" (15:42b), then the next phrase is another explanation and preface, "that is, the day before the Sabbath" (15:42c).//
Exactly. Which goes to show Mark is unaware that the Sabbath started right after sunset!
//==>The Passover day on one calendar would not necessarily correspond to the Passover day on the other calendar.//
So they aren't eating the Passover meal per Mark 14:12-18? Seriously? The natural reading of the text indicates that it WAS Passover.
//==>BTW, during all of posts I mostly confined myself to only using Mark. I barely mentioned the other Gospels because we were investigating the plausibility of Mark's story alone. Having said that, I could have used the other Gospels to defend the traditional theory.//
The other gospels omit and avoid Mark's errors. Mark is the earliest account though. Matthew and Luke just edited it.
ANNOYED PINOY:
"No, the Greek reads AFTER evening had already started is when Joseph begins his tasks"
==>I'm not denying that. That's assumed in my comments. Like when I wrote: "Mark 15:42b-46a is a preface and explanation of what happened before verse 46b." All that could be bracketed so that the author is saying at evening Joseph took Jesus' down. For example, a translator could translate it this way [using the ESV as a template]:
QUOTE:
And when evening had come, [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the Council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.44 Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead.45 And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the corpse to Joseph.46 And Joseph bought a linen shroud, ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.
END QUOTE
"Mark (gentile author) seems unaware or doesn't care that he has Joseph bury Jesus on the Sabbath according to his chronology."
==>That assumes that Mark does have Joseph burying Jesus on the weekly Sabbath. I don't think he does, and you haven't demonstrated it.
"So they aren't eating the Passover meal per Mark 14:12-18? Seriously? The natural reading of the text indicates that it WAS Passover."
==>According to whose perspective? Mark's? Mark's audience? Jesus and the disciples? According to which calendar? Early or late observance? Mark's perspective could be different from Jesus' and his disciples'. Mark may have been using descriptions of the days that correspond to a particular calendar when in fact Jesus and the disciples were using a different one. Mark may have picked one calendar and used it to describe the events for simplicity's sake, and left it up to his readers to determine for themselves which calendar Jesus and the disciples might have been using. Since it was common knowledge that there were different calendars.
==> I notice that you didn't address the major hole I put into your theory. Namely, that there are 4 consecutive prefatory comments before Joseph is described as taking down Jesus body. Which makes it nearly certain that the author of gMark meant for us to take the comment about Joseph seeing Pilate and making purchases as having occurred BEFORE evening.
==>Here it is again, copy and pasted [with minor touch ups]:
QUOTE:Notice how after mentioning how evening had come (15:42a) the author then gives an explanatory comment and preface with "since it was the day of Preparation" (15:42b), then the next phrase is ***ANOTHER*** explanation and preface, "that is, the day before the Sabbath" (15:42c). Then he refers to Joseph (15:43a), then gives ***ANOTHER*** explanation and preface with "a respected member of the Council" (15:43b), then gives ***ANOTHER*** explanation and preface "who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God" (15:43c). That's at least FOUR (!!!!) explanatory comments in a row. With all these explanatory prefaces, it's natural to interpret 15:43d to 15:46a as ALSO being explanatory comments and preface regarding what happened before evening. In other words, that Joseph went to see Pilate and purchased items before evening and the author of Mark includes that as a preface. They were all prefatory comments explaining how Joseph could remove the body without further ado. Otherwise, the Roman soldiers would have prohibited him from doing so. END QUOTE
==>If I were an atheist, that would be my charitable interpretation. With all the things I could object to in gMark, this would not be one of them. In all honestly, I would give this one to the Christians because it's not only a possible and plausible reading, it's the likely correct reading as well.
==>BTW, even assuming that Jesus celebrated the Passover, and even assuming that it was unlawful for Joseph to purchase and bury Jesus during a (high or low) holy day, that doesn't mean Joseph couldn't possibly have done so. People do things contrary to the moral law or ceremonial law or civil law all the time. Joseph wasn't sinless. And as I said before, he could have had Gentiles doing the purchases. And Joseph, along with the other women [and anyone else like Nicodemus], could have felt justified in "breaking" holy day law to fulfill an act of mercy toward one whom they may have believed to be the "Lord of the Sabbath".
Notice that Samson is considered a Jewish hero despite his sins and ritual defilements. For example, there's a law against touching unclean animals, yet Samson took honey out of the carcass of a dead lion.
Or think of David who ate the consecrated holy bread [shewbread in the KJV] even though he was not a priest and it was unlawful for him to do so [1 Sam. 21].
Tommy Barker:
//==>I'm not denying that. That's assumed in my comments. Like when I wrote: "Mark 15:42b-46a is a preface and explanation of what happened before verse 46b." All that could be bracketed so that the author is saying at evening Joseph took Jesus' down. For example, a translator could translate it this way [using the ESV as a template]://
No one uses this ad hoc interpretation. You're only resorting to it as a last ditch effort to dodge the problem. The straightforward reading of the text has Joseph begin the tasks after evening had arrived. It DOES NOT SAY or even imply that he completed any of the tasks before evening.
//==>That assumes that Mark does have Joseph burying Jesus on the weekly Sabbath. I don't think he does, and you haven't demonstrated it.//
It's demonstrable due to the fact that completing all of those tasks within 1hr30min is physically impossible.
//==>According to whose perspective? Mark's? Mark's audience? Jesus and the disciples? According to which calendar? Early or late observance? Mark's perspective could be different from Jesus' and his disciples'. Mark may have been using descriptions of the days that correspond to a particular calendar when in fact Jesus and the disciples were using a different one. Mark may have picked one calendar and used it to describe the events for simplicity's sake, and left it up to his readers to determine for themselves which calendar Jesus and the disciples might have been using. Since it was common knowledge that there were different calendars.//
This is bullshit. Mark says it's the Passover meal and has them eat Passover that evening. Why would he say "where would you like us to prepare the Passover?" if Mark didn't intend to depict Passover? That makes no sense. You're tacitly admitting that Mark is wrong here and not reliable as a historical source.
//==> I notice that you didn't address the major hole I put into your theory. Namely, that there are 4 consecutive prefatory comments before Joseph is described as taking down Jesus body. Which makes it nearly certain that the author of gMark meant for us to take the comment about Joseph seeing Pilate and making purchases as having occurred BEFORE evening.//
That's because it doesn't deserve a response. Nothing in the text supports that Joseph did anything before evening. It EXPLICITLY says he started AFTER evening had arrived.
//That's at least FOUR (!!!!) explanatory comments in a row.//
A totally irrelevant non-sequitur. This is getting quite desperate.
//With all these explanatory prefaces, it's natural to interpret 15:43d to 15:46a as ALSO being explanatory comments and preface regarding what happened before evening.//
What verse says he did it before evening? Because 15:42 says AFTER evening had arrived he went to Pilate then ran the errands. You're trying to use Mark's explanation as to *who Joseph was* and somehow distort that as to meaning he did all the tasks before evening. This is pure ad hoc nonsense and as a consequence you're admitting that when the Markan text is read at face value the chronological problem exists. That's why you're resorting to a reading which no one even holds to.
//==>BTW, even assuming that Jesus celebrated the Passover, and even assuming that it was unlawful for Joseph to purchase and bury Jesus during a (high or low) holy day, that doesn't mean Joseph couldn't possibly have done so. People do things contrary to the moral law or ceremonial law or civil law all the time. Joseph wasn't sinless. And as I said before, he could have had Gentiles doing the purchases. And Joseph, along with the other women [and anyone else like Nicodemus], could have felt justified in "breaking" holy day law to fulfill an act of mercy toward one whom they may have believed to be the "Lord of the Sabbath".//
It's historically improbable that a distinguished member of the Sanhedrin would knowingly violate Jewish law.
ANNOYED PINOY:
"No one uses this ad hoc interpretation. You're only resorting to it as a last ditch effort to dodge the problem."
==>I've seen various commentaries interpreting it my way. Some even interpret "evening" as around 4 PM, not the approximate 6 PM that you're assuming. I used this argument late in our conversation because I didn't realize until then how you woodenly read the passage sequentially. Also, Jesus died at the 9th hour (i.e. 3 PM). If Joseph had already spoken to Pilate and purchased linen in advance, then that gives Joseph aprox. 3 hours to bury Jesus (assuming he started taking Jesus' body off the cross around 4 PM).
If you claim that there wasn't enough time is true, why isn't it a contradiction or discrepancy that's listed in the atheistic website "Skeptics Annotated Bible"? [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mk/15.html]
I'm not aware of it, but do you know of any other more prominent atheistic/skeptical/agnostic names who point to this alleged time discrepancy; whether Bart Ehrman, or Richard Carrier or Robert Price or John Loftus who argue this point?
Honestly, the timing doesn't seem to be problematic to me. What is more problematic is your objection that a "distinguished member of the Sanhedrin would knowingly violate Jewish law." I'll have to do more study on this. When it comes to whether Jesus' Last Supper was supposed to be a Passover celebration, I've always leaned toward it being so, but I'm not dogmatic. The issues involved are too deep for me to at this time to resolve (i.e. regarding the calendar, and early observance etc.).
Anyway, I've got a lot of things I need to do in the next few days. I used up too much time on this topic today. I've got to go. Thanks for the chat Tommy Barker.
Tommy Barker:
//If Joseph had already spoken to Pilate and purchased linen in advance//
The text says the exact opposite. There is literally zero support for Joseph doing any of this before evening.
ANNOYED PINOY:
I'm curious, do you read Mark 15:34-37 as saying Jesus died around the 9th hour? If so, what time would say that is in our modern measurements? Do you agree with me that Jesus died around 3 PM?
Tommy Barker:
Yes. Jesus is crucified at 9am. Darkness covers the land at noon. Jesus dies at 3pm. Then, after evening (6pm) had come, Joseph sets out to meet Pilate.
ANNOYED PINOY:
I see your chronology now. Okay. Thanks for the further clarification.
ANNOYED PINOY:
Do I have your permission to post this dialogue on my blog with your name changed to a pseudonym like Tommy Barker?
Tommy Barker:
Sure thing.
ANNOYED PINOY:
For your further reference, here's the link to the blog. If you see any typos that concern you, just private message me here on Facebook or post on my blog.
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2017/04/does-gospel-of-mark-provide-enough-time.html
ANNOYED PINOY:
My last question, then I really have to end the dialogue for now. You have the last word.
Assuming your chronology is correct, why do you think Joseph waited 3 hours to go and see Pilate? Or if you don't think this is generally historical, why do you think the author of Mark [who is making things up as he goes along] would have Joseph wait 3 hours? What was Joseph doing during those hours? Or what do you think Mark would have had Joseph doing?
Tommy Barker:
You have to keep in mind that this was Passover, or at least Mark intends to depict Friday as Passover. If that was the case then Joseph was most likely celebrating the festival just like any other Jew. He most likely wouldn't have attended a crucifixion. Unfortunately, Mark doesn't tell us how or when Joseph found out Jesus was dead but it must have been sometime between 3-6pm given the chronology.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
On the Accuracy of Luke's Census
A well known apparent error in the Bible that skeptics have often pointed out is the issue of the historicity of Luke's record of a census while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-2).
The following are some links to resources that will help Christians deal with the problem.
The Census of Quirinius
https://youtu.be/VclDxog95Ck
https://youtu.be/VclDxog95Ck
Did Luke Misdate the Census of Quirinius?
https://youtu.be/wVR0jXxJDn0
Some Triablogue links:
Luke's Census by Jason Engwer (all six parts)
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/12/lukes-census.html
Is Luke's Census Historical? by Jason Engwer
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-lukes-census-historical.html
Resources On Luke's Census by Jason Engwer
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/12/resources-on-lukes-census.html
Richard Bauckham On The Historicity Of Luke's Census And Luke 2:22-24 by Jason Engwer
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/11/richard-bauckham-on-historicity-of.html
Luke's Census Didn't Involve Ancestry by Jason Engwer
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/12/lukes-census-didnt-involve-ancestry.html
Jared Compton On Luke's Census by Jason Engwer
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/11/jared-compton-on-lukes-census.html
Out of our census by Jason Engwer
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/out-of-our-census.html
Paul Tobin Vs. Richard Carrier On Luke's Census by Jason Engwer
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/08/paul-tobin-vs-richard-carrier-on-lukes.html
Recent Apologetics on the Nativity
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/12/recent-apologetics-on-nativity.html
The liberal tug-of-war by Steve Hays
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/liberal-tug-of-war.html
Quirinius and the gunfight at O.K. Corral by Steve Hays
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/06/quirinius-and-gunfight-at-ok-corral.html
The hidden contradictions of Ehrman by Steve Hays
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/03/hidden-contradictions-of-ehrman.html
The lowdown on the census of Quirinius
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-lowdown-on-census-of-quirinius.html
Understanding And Arguing For Luke's Census Account
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/12/understanding-and-arguing-for-lukes.html
There are more resources at Triablogue, but the above are a sample.
Recommendations on doing a website search.
Other links:
Once More: Quirinius's Census by Jared M. Compton
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/Once-More-Quiriniuss-Census.aspx
On Quirinius' Census by Darrell Bock
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWm0O93unDY&feature=related
Josephus Misdated the Census of Quirinius by John H. Rhoads
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-1/JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf
Luke, Quirinius, and the Census by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=907&utm_source=buffer&buffer_share=05f5f
Luke 2:2 and the Census by Stephen C. Carlson
http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/12/luke-22-and-the-census.html
A “most prominent” census: Carlson vs. Carrier
Luke, Quirinius, and the Census
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=907
Unbelievable? Is Luke’s Description of Quirinius Historically Inaccurate?
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/unbelievable-is-lukes-description-of-quirinius-historically-inaccurate/
Controversial researcher Ernest L. Martin addressed the census in his book The Star of Bethlehem: The Star That Astonished the World.
Here's a link to Chapter 12
While I'm no longer a Roman Catholic, Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis wrote:
If it's true that Josephus had two different dates for the death of Herod, then it would be a matter of fact that Josephus got it wrong at least once. Which also means Josephus could have gotten it wrong twice. Conversely, this also means that Luke could have gotten it right. In which case, skeptics put too much weight on this apparent Biblical error whenever they argue against Biblical Inerrancy. Unfortunately, Sungenis didn't give any more information in his reference to the work of Hugues de Nanteuil."Thanks to the work of Hugues de Nanteuil, we have found that the modern critics are wrong. Little known (or advertised by modern scholars) is that Josephus had two different dates for the death of Herod, and the interpretation of the source containing 4 B.C. is highly debatable. In Herod’s [sic] other work, he says Herod died in 7 or 8 BC."
Michael Heiser lists some recent scholarly reasons why Herod may have died 1 BCE in an article here: http://drmsh.com/september-11-happy-birthday-to-jesus/
Heiser's two main sources in defense of a 1 BCE death of Herod are:
1. Herodian Chronology by Ormond Edwards,
from the Palestine Exploration Quarterly, volume 114, 1982 - Issue 1
2. When Did Herod the Great Reign? by Andrew E. Steinmann,
from Novum Testamentum 51 (2009) 1-29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)