Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The intertextual origin of Mark's Tomb Burial narrative:

[43] Joseph of Arimathaea, and honourable counseller, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.

Isaiah 53:9 And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death; for he practised no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth.

Deuteronomy 21:23 his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but ye shall by all means bury it in that day; for every one that is hanged on a tree is cursed of God; and ye shall by no means defile the land which the Lord thy God gives thee for an inheritance.

[44] And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
[45] And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
[46] And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

Isaiah 53:9 And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death; for he practised no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth.

Isaiah 22:16 (LXX) (where the sepulchre is a metaphor for the temple) thou hast here hewn thyself a sepulchre, and madest thyself a sepulchre on high, and hast graven for thyself a dwelling in the rock

Cf Joshua 10:18-27 And Joshua said, Roll great stones upon the mouth of the cave, and set men by it for to keep them: And stay ye not, but pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their cities: for the LORD your God hath delivered them into your hand. And it came to pass, when Joshua and the children of Israel had made an end of slaying them with a very great slaughter, till they were consumed, that the rest which remained of them entered into fenced cities. And all the people returned to the camp to Joshua at Makkedah in peace: none moved his tongue against any of the children of Israel. Then said Joshua, Open the mouth of the cave, and bring out those five kings unto me out of the cave. And they did so, and brought forth those five kings unto him out of the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them. And Joshua said unto them, Fear not, nor be dismayed, be strong and of good courage: for thus shall the LORD do to all your enemies against whom ye fight. And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees: and they were hanging upon the trees until the evening. And it came to pass at the time of the going down of the sun, that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, and cast them into the cave wherein they had been hid, and laid great stones in the cave’s mouth, which remain until this very day.

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:23 pm

But that's what "the gospel" is. As Jesus says in Mk. 9:12 and 14:21 (for examples):

Exactly. That point actually counts against historicity.

It is a hidden thing, it was foretold.... it's nothing to do with history. But it was written as historical narrative. But with no witnesses cited. No information to lend credibility to the authors ....

Like Enoch learning from revelation about the history of the Watchers.

Besides, the mere fact of burial is not a story and we have to assume it has the powers of a mustard seed if it can take root and flourish into a Markan narrative, or even the last part of the Markan narrative -- especially given that Mark indicates the disciples were not told to return to Galilee etc.

I don't see why the story of Jesus' burial couldn't have had the powers of a mustard seed and flourished in Mark's narrative (whether in Mark's mind or Peter's), but I also don't see why Jesus couldn't have actually been buried in a tomb and Paul just didn't mention it.

And Jesus tells his disciples in Mk. 14:28 that "after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee," so even though the women who visited the tomb didn't say anything to anyone, the disciples already had that information (according to Mark's story, at least).

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:28 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:23 pm

But that's what "the gospel" is. As Jesus says in Mk. 9:12 and 14:21 (for examples):

Exactly. That point actually counts against historicity.

It is a hidden thing, it was foretold.... it's nothing to do with history. But it was written as historical narrative. But with no witnesses cited. No information to lend credibility to the authors ....

Like Enoch learning from revelation about the history of the Watchers.

But that's what I'm saying is going on in the DSS too. Are the people and events that are "foretold" in the DSS likewise non-historical?

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:37 pm
I don't see why the story of Jesus' burial couldn't have had the powers of a mustard seed and flourished in Mark's narrative (whether in Mark's mind or Peter's), but I also don't see why Jesus couldn't have actually been buried in a tomb and Paul just didn't mention it.

There are no narrative details in Paul. All the narrative comes from intertextuality. "Buried" is hardly a narrative detail. It is a one word declaration of what they are to believe. That's not a core of a narrative.

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:38 pm

But that's what I'm saying is going on in the DSS too. Are the people and events that are "foretold" in the DSS likewise non-historical?

Historians do not look at prophecies and use those to determine historical facts. They use historical facts to decide if prophecies were made in hindsight after the events.

And historical facts are determined by set processes that remove the element of speculation.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:57 pm

arnoldo wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:12 pm
Given that there was no oral tradition then the gospel/epistles were written accounts of events previously unknown to the reader. Presumably a reader of such accounts would have no social memory of these events. . . . . readers of the gospel/epistle accounts at the time these texts were written could possibly object to accepting the gospel/epistle accounts since these accounts were invented out of thin air, no?

That's the general position taken by the mainstream New Testament scholarship but there are several grounds for objection.

The point you express assumes the gospels were written as histories to readers who had some general idea of the events beforehand.

Yet the Gospel of Mark has been interpreted by some scholars to imply that its readers knew nothing of the story it contains. It's conclusion at 16:8 indicates that no-one had known of the events, certainly nothing about an empty tomb, until that gospel was read. That position is consistent with Paul's failure to mention anything about an empty tomb. There was no prior social memory to appeal to.

Mark 16:8 may indicate that the readers of Mark had previously not heard of the empty tomb narrative. Other passages of Mark may indicate that the readers had not previously heard about other passages e.g the allegorical interpretation of the parable of the sower or the account of the transfiguration.

However, assuming at least FTSOA that this line of argument is valid, it does not seem to lead to the conclusion that all (or mostly all) of Mark's narrative was previously unknown to his readers. It would see, rather, to provide a basis for distinguishing between a large part of Mark that was previously known to his readers and a large part that was new to them.

To clarify, the claim that a large portion of Mark's narrative was previously known to Mark's readers, should be distinguished from the claim that this material was necessarily historically accurate. E.G. The claim that Mark's readers previously knew stories about Jesus healing people should be distinguished from the claim that that the historical Jesus actually did heal people.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:18 am To clarify, the claim that a large portion of Mark's narrative was previously known to Mark's readers, should be distinguished from the claim that this material was necessarily historically accurate. E.G. The claim that Mark's readers previously knew stories about Jesus healing people should be distinguished from the claim that that the historical Jesus actually did heal people.

Andrew Criddle

You are quite correct, of course. I kinda knew I was going to have to go into a lot of explanation some point up ahead to cover all of that so I am glad you have brought the point to the fore.

I should have stood back and thought through more slowly how best to respond. I sometimes wish I could be as patient as my wife wishes I were.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:05 pm
And historical facts are determined by set processes that remove the element of speculation.

Here is a table that points towards what those processes are. "N-f" stands for "non-fiction".

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:01 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:37 pm
I don't see why the story of Jesus' burial couldn't have had the powers of a mustard seed and flourished in Mark's narrative (whether in Mark's mind or Peter's), but I also don't see why Jesus couldn't have actually been buried in a tomb and Paul just didn't mention it.

There are no narrative details in Paul. All the narrative comes from intertextuality. "Buried" is hardly a narrative detail. It is a one word declaration of what they are to believe. That's not a core of a narrative.

Depending on which side you’re on, confirmation bias could indicate Paul knew nothing of an earthly Jesus or that the Pauline writer was writing to a community which already had social memory of such a person. The latter argument also presumes that the Pauline writer did not think it necessary to repeat excessive details of what his audience already knew.