The Resurrection of Jesus Fact #3, part 2

 Claim 3: Joseph would have been a good historical invention

(First, I should pause here to say that this information comes from a chapter titled "The Resurrection of Jesus: What We Cannot Know." Ehrman doesn't demand that Jesus certainly wasn't buried by Joseph, but rather he argues contrary indications and the possibility of Christian storytellers raises uncertainty.)

As you might recall from reading the introduction, 6 of the claims I will use to support the resurrection are (or at least were and probably still are) on a scholarly consensus. The two others which aren't so agreed upon but still have some skeptical support will be labeled as such in their titles, so of course this fact isn't one. 

In two debates between skeptical scholars, John Dominic Crossan and the one against Ludemann, leading Christian apologist William Lane Craig gives examples of critical scholarship not debunking Jesus's honorable burial. Highly critical twentieth century scholar Rudolf Bultmann, who even got his own school of critical thought, reported that "This is a historical report which makes no impression of being legendary, apart from the women who appear again as witnesses in v. 47 and vs. 44, 45." (19)

Craig cites an explanation of this "lack of legend" (which may not be exactly what Bultmann had in mind) from respected New Testament scholar Raymond E. Brown (a Christian), reflecting on one piece of evidence I have already presented and the other to be presented afterward:

"I have been outlining a detectable pre-Gospel account of the burial of Jesus by Joseph. ... How much of that is history? That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath....is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That the burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation from nothing of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus. ... While high probability is not certainty, there is nothing in the basic pre-Gospel account of Jesus' burial by Joseph that could not plausibly be deemed historical." (20)

Finally, Craig cites a scholarly article asking "Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?" They use skeptical scholars to prove that the burial story is indeed historical. Bultmann "and many other biblical scholars ... acknowledge [a] historically reliable core in the story of Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus' body[.]" (21)

(I am not putting this up against How Jesus Became God because I believe Ehrman cannot and should not honestly go against people like Bultmann. As a matter of fact, the article acknowledged that there were some deniers here and there. The only such scholar cited was Crossan, interestingly enough, whose alternative theory Ehrman also cites[22]. But when Ehrman attacked the possible Christian misinterpretation of Philo allowing Jews to bury their crucified dead, he said he "should point out" it[23], and Bart Ehrman is well aware of Rudolf Bultmann, calling him "arguably the greatest and most influential scholar of the New Testament in the twentieth century." [24] Ehrman is a great Bible scholar and very influential himself, one proof being multiple New York Times bestsellers [like How Jesus Became God], and tends to doubt Christian arguments. I believe he should have included pro-burial skeptical thought on this subject.)

Now, onto specific evidence. As Brown said, one tell-tale sign of authenticity in the burial story of Jesus is that there was anger in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. Why would they decide to invent one as the man who buried their Savior? But How Jesus Became God, while I don't remember there ever being a explicit acknowledgement of this argument, has material which could turn it on its head.

First, there is a "discrepancy" because Mark 14:55 and 14:64 has all the Jewish leaders be against Jesus, but then in 15:42-46, Joseph of Arimathea "a prominent member of the council" went boldy to Pontius Pilate to ask for the body(25). 

Then it is argued that "If the followers of Jesus knew that he 'had' to be buried in a tomb... and they had to invent a story that described the burial, then the only ones who could possibly do the deed were the Jewish authorities themselves." (26) This is because Jesus and His family all weren't there, the Romans wouldn't do it, and the Disciples had all fallen away (fact 1 of this blog project). 

The next claim draws on the supposedly earlier burial tradition from Acts. "As the burial tradition came to be told and retold, it possibly became embellished and made more concrete." (26) Finally, supposedly among Christian storytelling, "there was a tendency to find 'good guys' among the 'bad guys' of the stories." (27)

First, I have to point out that the Acts 13 narrative as a serious burial tradition before the Gospels is a very weak assumption. It came two books later, by an author who included Joseph in his first work! There is absolutely no good probability that the speech which identified all the Jews as the ones who buried Jesus would be accessed and then used by one who disagreed, at least about two decades after it had been embellished! Even if he was just trying to concretely stick to earlier tradition he could identify for whatever reason -- I find it hard to imagine; maybe he eyewitnessed Paul? --  he could just change the wording some, as authors do to fit their purposes. Also, if this tradition was still around for people to identify, there surely would be tension between what people decide to believe, so it probably would have been "proven" as technically false... or perhaps the interpretation wasn't supposed to be literally completely historical in the first place and so the Joseph story could develop. I'm basically just going to ignore this consideration and point out that if the evidence weighs in favor of no one inventing Joseph, Acts clearly isn't the authority for specific Christian tradition on their Lord's burial (especially since the context of the speech fits generalizing toward Jews as shown in part 1). Ironically, my thoughts toward this claim is the agnosticism Ehrman has for the Gospels' burial: it can't be shown that this is a earlier tradition or that it's supposed to completely historically cover the burial!

Then, it is interesting how Ehrman's own examples point out that in Mark, he presents the bad guys as bad guys, and we see later embellishment (supposedly) in the other, later Gospels. Pilate condemned Jesus to death, and the two men "crucified with Him also heaped insults on Him." (Mark 15:32) Now, this doesn't demand that by the time it reached Mark, the story hadn't already evolved. But I can think of a vital point, which reminds me of what Ehrman thought as well: the "embellished" story from the public burial in Acts still had to keep the Jews. That is, the evident core truth to the story is if it's embarrassing. So maybe Jesus wasn't buried by Joseph of Arimathea of the Sanhedrin -- he was actually buried by Jo Schmo of the Sanhedrin. Joseph was just more prominent. 

A vital piece of information I can use is from William Lane Craig, who pointed out the historical common knowledge that it is unlike legend writers to so faithfully stick to the facts, and I add in "especially if they're embarrassing." So, it's not probable that any Christian storytellers who made up Joseph of Arimathea would have to have a Jewish burial. Actually, the "discrepancy" in the Gospel of Mark shows that the author (who really wasn't inventing a story but suppose he might) didn't bother to stick to the facts! He didn't shake anything up to show Joseph's, er, perhaps faked condemnation because he couldn't really do anything and didn't want to be abused too. Even if Mark didn't invent either traditions, he serves as an example to show that other Christians didn't need to consider such either. And it's improbable that Mark, as a Christian storyteller, would overlook the "discrepancy" (28) -- that's acknowledging that legend inventors don't have to care about the facts! -- especially considering his habit to narrate what goes on in his Gospel (see for example 7:23 and 9:6). Furthermore, if different Christian cultures were developing different traditions, they could "identify" those that were "false."

(I will pause quickly here to show that it isn't improbable that the Gospel isn't in error here: maybe Joseph had some thoughts before hand but wasn't really convinced, and then he felt convicted to give Jesus a proper burial because it was the Passover and it seemed that Jesus wasn't really all that bad because of "how he died," which convinced a centurion [Mark 15:39]. But this definitely wasn't explained in Mark. It does look like he did contradict himself.)

The Disciples had been... anything but flattering before(29). They could just hurry back and bury the body, and then leave it. Or maybe the women could get some anonymous Christian men to bury the corpse, like those who would be around in Luke (Luke 23:49; if this was a Lukan invention, someone could have dreamed it up earlier if need be). Or maybe a character like the new believer in 15:39! 

So they wouldn't need to invent a Jewish leader. I see evidence of Christian NON-invention in how John's Disciples reportedly just took the body away and buried it after he lost his head to a Herod (Mark 6:29), and Jesus has this detailed account about how an enemy did it. 

Then:

"No one could have invented a person who did not exist and say he was on the Sanhedrin if such were not the case. Almost everyone knew who was on the Sanhedrin. ...

"...because Joseph was a public figure, people would have known him and the location of his tomb. If Jesus had not been buried in his tomb, this would have been all too easy to verify. So, it would have been highly problematic to have mentioned such a public figure if someone were to fabricate the account." (15)

Now, I can't show it is true that the members of the Jewish council would have been common knowledge, although I trust Moreland and it does make a lot of sense that in a place of oral culture Jews in the current and next generation could point out who their leaders were. Everyone I know (who is old enough) can identify Biden and Trump (although this is an imperfect analogy since their information is spread out across a country instead of, say, the city of Jerusalem where they would live). 

This quote was enough though to lead me to think that if anyone ever would bother to try to create a realistic burial account, they'd think twice and decimate the idea, because what if someone exposes the lie? Maybe an enemy who hears the claim and respects their leaders, or a Christian who knows better? Even if it wasn't common knowledge, there definitely would be people, in the first or even second generation, who would know. For arguments sake, that's all I need. 

One last objection I can get from Ehrman, in a debate recorded online(30). He argues (in multiple places but this one mentions the burial) that a reasonable cause for Mark inventing women at the tomb (we shall see more about this next post) is because the people who culturally speaking would be considered more important (the male Disciples) have a habit of doubting Him and not realizing who He is, while the women stick with their Lord during the crucifixion, burial, and then empty tomb. One theme in Mark is the lesser being the most faithful to the Greatest. My response is that first, the bad guys he preserved provides counterexamples that he would, second, bother to do so just for the burial. But then, what about the Roman centurion that crucified Jesus? He parallels the Jewish leaders! But even then it could be argued that that means it wasn't invented either. (Also I imagine that the early church was more biased against the Jewish council, leaders of His own people, who sent Jesus to the Roman Pilate than with just the Roman army, but can't be quite sure.) Whatever the case with why Mark included him, Joseph is special. Surely Mark would explain something of why he condemned Him, especially considering how he is supposedly reflecting on the deeper meaning of things (he is an observant author and would probably include further invention), and he shows that the centurion believed because of evidence (Mark 15:39). He does say, in the burial account, that Joseph was "himself waiting for the kingdom of God" (15:43). But this could probably be interpreted as not necessarily being a Christian but as some sort of seeker of the truth. On the other hand, the Roman centurion said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!" And as I mentioned before, Mark appeared to contradict Himself because they all condemned Jesus. Painting Joseph in a good light elsewhere is part of the tension, not a resolution. Finally, this only touches on Mark's Gospel. Why would someone allow the non-historical burial by a prominent member of the evil council to be widely spread, especially when that would invite denunciation by those who would know better? Legend writers absolutely do not need to care so much as to have an odd, supposedly best "historical" story.  

The same goes for Luke, Matthew, and John. John clearly reports that a council member named Nicodemus respected Jesus (John 3) and buried His body alongside Joseph (John 19:39-42).

Finally, in the debate between Craig and Ludemann, skeptical New Testament scholar Michael Goulder said that the tradition may have been invented -- he used the example of the author of Mark himself -- because Joseph was indeed a historical figure, and was understood as having sympathized toward Jesus(31). Along with pointing out that Jewish enemies would know about Joseph, Craig includes how had Mark managed to get hold of this historically accurate person, he could easily ask about more, even if writing from Rome(32). Craig says there was verbal information being traded to and fro around the Mediterranean world, and he would know this surely historical common sense, and I consider that in such away because it is the impression I get from all of my reading I can remember. A big point is this was a very different time where word of mouth was by far the most popular method of communication. Also, this doesn't solve why Mark didn't explain such in his account when Joseph condemned Jesus, or demand that the burial story fit fact, especially considering hostility to supposedly at least almost all of the Jewish leaders among Christians (just because he was a sympathizer doesn't mean he didn't think Jesus shouldn't have died). Lastly, Mark would have even more incentive to check the story out so no one who would knew better could cause any trouble. 

Conclusion: Critical scholars who accept this are right!

Craig Evans, in How God Became Jesus, cited Jodi Magness, a Jewish archaeologist from University of North Carolina, Chapel Hil:

"Gospel accounts of Jesus' burial are largely consistent with the archaeological evidence. Although archaeology does not prove there was a follower of Jesus named Joseph of Arimathea or that Pontius Pilate granted his request for Jesus' body, the Gospel accounts describing Jesus' removal from the cross and burial are consistent with archaeological evidence and with Jewish law." (33)

Pontius Pilate is irrelevant and Joseph is proven by being a highly unlikely invention. 

Oh, and P.S., Ehrman says, "...there are a lot of reasons for someone wanting to invent the story that Jesus was buried in a known tomb and that it was discovered empty.... the most important is that the discovery of the empty tomb is central to the claim that Jesus was resurrected. If there was no empty tomb, Jesus was not physically raised." (34)

Well, we've already seen that linking Jesus's burial with a Sanhedrinist is asking for trouble. I must say that I had once decided to not include the burial because, well, as Ehrman also is very observant: "It is always possible that an exception was made, of course." (35) However I disagree with his claim that the empty tomb is "similarly thrown into doubt" just on the basis of no evidence for the burial and contrary indications(36), because strong evidence for the empty tomb would indicate an exception. And that is where I turn to next.

Citations/notes:

15. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Baker Book: Grand Rapids, MI. 1987), 167. See also Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI. 2016), 229.

19. Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischon Tradition 2d ed., Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 12 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), p. 296. Cited in Copan and Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection, 170.

20. Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols. (garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1994), 2:1240-41. Cited in Paul Copan, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI. 1998), 161-62. 

21. Daniel Kendall and Gerald O' Collins, "Did Joseph of Arimathea Exist?" Biblica 75 (1994): 236. Cited in Copan, Real Jesus, 162.

22. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 157; see also 163 for Pontius Pilate.

23. Ibid., 158.

24. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne: 2012), 83; see also 85, 185-86.

25. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 152-53.

26. Ibid., 155.

27. Ibid., 156.

28. Ibid., 153. This consideration reminds me of Ehrman's claim that there was multiple different Christian sects, which of course there practically would have to be if opposing traditions are being invented.

29. Some examples being 9:10, 34, and 10:35-37, 41. See my post arguing for Mark: https://onechristianthought.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-true-lost-gospel-of-peter-updated.html

30. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman

31. Copan and Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection, 100.

32. Copan and Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection, 169-70.

33. Evans, How God Became Jesus, 89; quoting J. Magness, "Jesus' Tomb: What Did It Look Like?", in Where Christianity Was Born, ed. H. Shanks (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2006), 224. Cited in Kostenberger et al., Truth in a Culture of Doubt, 170.

34. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 168.

35. Ibid., 160.

36. Ibid., 164.