> You realize that Jesus', Paul's, and John the Dipper's followers were all apocalypticists.

It depends what you mean by this. Of course Jesus knew He would be coming back. Paul knew Jesus would be coming back also. John the Baptizer? I'd need some evidence.

> Mark saying that he was an apocalypticist

Mark is not saying Joseph was an apocalypticist, but rather that he was a devoted follower of Jesus. That's what comes from the context of the Gospel rather than from eisegesis.

> Matthew copied passages word-for-word from Mark

I would say that shows you haven't examined it yourself, but instead rely on some link.

Let's talk about Matthew 27 and Mark 15—the texts under discussion.

Matthew 27.57-60: Ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης ἦλθεν ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθαίας, τοὔ νομα Ἰωσήφ, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐμαθητεύθη τῷ Ἰησοῦ· οὗτος προσελθὼν τῷ Πειλάτῳ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. τότε ὁ Πειλᾶτος ἐκέλευσεν ἀποδοθῆναι. καὶ λαβὼν τὸ σῶμα ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ ἐν σινδόνι καθαρᾷ, καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸ ἐν τῷ καινῷ αὐτοῦ μνημείῳ ὃ ἐλατόμησεν ἐν τῇ πέτρᾳ, καὶ προσκυλίσας λίθον μέγαν τῇ θύρᾳ τοῦ μνημείου ἀπῆλθεν.

Mark 15:42-46: Καὶ ἤδη ὀψίας γενομένης, ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευή, ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον, ἐλθὼν Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ Ἁριμαθαίας εὐσχήμων βουλευτής, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν προσδεχόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, τολμήσας εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πειλᾶτον καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. ὁ δὲ Πειλᾶτος ἐθαύμασεν εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκεν, καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν κεντυρίωνα ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν εἰ ἤδη ἀπέθανεν· καὶ γνοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ κεντυρίωνος ἐδωρήσατο τὸ πτῶμα τῷ Ἰωσήφ. καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνήματι ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας, καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου.

Occurrences of word-for-word copying? Identical phraseology? Don't use the crutch of what the scholars say; use your own eyes and brain.

Here it is: ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. That's the only identical phraseology in the two accounts. That's it. That's not copying. There's little case for word-for-word copying. Read it for yourself. It's typical through the two Gospels, as I showed you. Do this for the whole Gospels. I've done it; I don't see it, just like here.

> If they moved the body, and then the disciples started preaching resurrection

This is not a quote from what I wrote. You must be mixing and matching responses.

> Great, I'm not sure why we're having this conversation then if you can't argue without presuppositions.

I'm not arguing presuppositions. I'm an evidentialist, not a presuppositionalist. We follow the evidence where it leads. No naturalist explanation fits the claims. The evidence leads us to supernaturalism.

> the body was left to rot and then dumped in a grave for criminals. Do you think this is more likely than reburial?

No. What is most likely is that Jesus rose from the dead by supernatural means. The works of N.T. Wright, Mike Licona, and Gary Habermas, along with the Gospel accounts, are quite convincing.

You realize that Jesus', Paul's, and John the Dipper's followers were all apocalypticists. In fact, the majority of Jews with the exception of elites were. Mark saying that he was an apocalypticist and not mentioning him as a follower of Jesus is not evidence for him being a follower—you have to use the two gospels that smack the most of fantasy to make that claim

Matthew copied passages word-for-word from Mark—there's no debate about it in among scholars. The classic example of verbatim agreement is the 31 words in Mt. 10:21-22 and Mk. 13:12-13, which can only be explained by copying a written source. Word order often doesn't matter in Koine, and Mark uses simplified grammar and vocabulary (referred to by some scholars as "trade manual Greek") that Matt and Luke stylized. Have you ever seen students' plagarized papers?

> If they moved the body, and then the disciples started preaching resurrection

Why would officials expect it to? If the body went missing from the cross, would that cause resurrection claims? Do you have a source for any contemporary resurrection claims caused by missing bodies?

If Joseph decided that he wanted the body out of his tomb for whatever reason, would the "threat" of resurrection claims pressure him to keep it there?

> I don't think any naturalistic case is probable. The resurrection is clearly portrayed as supernatural and there is nothing natural or naturalistic possible.

Great, I'm not sure why we're having this conversation then if you can't argue without presuppositions. The only other hypothesis that commenters have made is the mainstream one: the body was left to rot and then dumped in a grave for criminals. Do you think this is more likely than reburial?

> This suggests that he was an apocalypticist
Nonsense. If you can say it, I can. Mt. 27.57 and Jn. 19.38 explain to us that he was a disciple of Christ. Mark uses his own theme of "kingdom of God" to say the same thing. The Synoptics and John are in agreement that Joe was a devoted follower of Christ.

> It also doesn't mention that he's a council member, despite the author copying from Mark

We know that the 4 Gospel writers are selective about which factors to include and exclude. It's of no consequence.

As far as copying from Mark, I've done a detailed study of the two Gospels (Mark and Matthew). The amount of alleged copying is vastly overrated. It's FAR more accurate to say they are unique accounts of the same narrative.

For instance, I couldn't get a reliable figure of how much of Matthew was from Mark off the Internet. I started reading through, comparing the two. Eighteen verses of Mark 1, for instance (out of 45), are in Matthew. Twenty-four (of 28) verses of Mark 2 are in Matthew. Twenty-five (of 35) of Mark 3. The two accounts are quite different, though, I noticed when I read them in parallel. Though it was the same thought, it was rarely the same words. Sometimes I had a hard time figuring out if the verse from Mark was actually in Matthew, they were worded so differently. I had to make some judgment calls.

I would say that though much of Mark is in Matthew (Internet sources said in the vicinity of 90%), it's untrue that a large percentage of Matthew is from Mark. If it's true that 600 verses of Mark are in Matthew (I have my doubts, but let's just go with that), that means 56% of Matthew is also in Mark, leaving 44% of Matthew unique from Mark. I would not consider that "a very large percentage...taken word for word." It's not even close to word for word, and 44% of Matthew is unique from Mark.

And when we get to the death and burial accounts, there is little case to be made for copying.

Mt. 27.45; Mk. 15.33. Same thought, expressed differently. They have 7 words in common, but in a different order.

Mt. 27.46; Mk. 15.34. “Jesus cried in a loud voice” is the same, but his words have a grammatical variant, so even they aren’t identical. Then the translation or explanation of His words, though in English they are translated the same, the Greek is totally different.

Mt. 27.47; Mk. 15.35. Both writers express the same thought but in completely different Greek.

Mt. 27.48-49; Mk. 15.36. Both writers express the same thought but in completely different Greek.

Mt. 27.50; Mk. 15.37. They both mention his loud cry, but Matthew says he gave up his spirit whereas Mark says he breathed his last. They both mention the temple curtain torn in two (using different Greek), but then Matthew goes in a completely unique direction for vv. 51-53.

Mt. 27.54; Mk. 15.39. Both include the exclamation of the centurion, but in completely different Greek.

I have to seriously question whether Matthew copied from Mark. Both are obviously giving accounts of the same events, but in very different language. I don't see evidence of copying at all.

> Why couldn't Roman soldiers take initiative themselves?

Rome would have no interest in perpetrating treason. If they moved the body, and then the disciples started preaching resurrection, that would be an easy hoax to shut down. Rome soldiers would not have spent their time emptying a grave for a Jewish official, doing something that would cause problems in Jerusalem for Rome.

> You said that he would've had to defy his peers. How does that not connote social pressure?

John mentions that Joe feared the Jews. It must have taken some courage at this time to stand against the council when they had voted to kill Jesus and the other disciples had deserted Jesus. But since he had the courage to take the body and prepare it for burial, and since he found a compatriot in Nicodemus, it's unlikely that the very next day he would feel compelled to remove the body from his tomb. The Sanhedrin didn't seem to care that Jesus was buried; their concern is that He was finally dead.

> what's your most probable naturalistic case?

I don't think any naturalistic case is probable. The resurrection is clearly portrayed as supernatural and there is nothing natural or naturalistic possible.

> The remark by Mark that Joseph was "waiting for the kingdom of God" taps into Markan themes of a true follower of Jesus

Nonsense. This suggests that he was an apocalypticist, which I argued in favor of in the post. Not all apocalypticists were followers of Jesus, in fact, practically none of them were: apocalypticism was the most popular view that only the Sadducees didn't share. This only indicates that he held a minority view among the council but a majority view in the general public

> Matthew 27.57 confirms that Joseph was a devoted follower of Jesus.

It also doesn't mention that he's a council member, despite the author copying from Mark. I'm not interested in arguing a fringe view of the least-reliable Synoptic

> Of course not, but at one time, they did. My point is that subscription by a majority of scholars is no guarantee of truth

That's not a good argument. Views in the past are generally less sophisticated and veritable than they are now, and you'd need to argue that there's a trend of consensuses getting worse

I agree that it's not specifically about washing hands (I couldn't help bringing it up), but he does include the metaphor "since it enters not the heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer", which could lead readers to believe that washing hands isn't necessary (and many have based on it). The most interesting part of the passage is the end of 7:19 where the author adds "Thus he declared all foods clean", which Jesus doesn't say. This indicates it was likely historical

> Your statement implies that he could have been involved in moving the body with the help of non-Jews any time on Saturday, ignoring Sabbath laws

Could he not have asked non-Jews to move it without breaking Sabbath? Why couldn't Roman soldiers take initiative themselves?

> that he felt pressure to get the corpse out of his tomb (unfounded)

You said that he would've had to defy his peers. How does that not connote social pressure?

> Your "naturalistic explanation" fails to carry the case

Please enlighten me: what's your most probable naturalistic case?

> He's the most popular NT scholar in the world with highly influential views

Of course he's popular and influential. He has given a voice to the contra-traditional view, so everyone or anyone who doesn't want to follow the evidence latches onto Erhman. Even though 2000 scholars say certain things are true, Erhman says they're not, and those who don't want to believe they're true say, "Finally! A real scholar!"

> Your explanation is that he was a follower of Jesus, but that's contrived and not supported in Mark

The remark by Mark that Joseph was "waiting for the kingdom of God" taps into Markan themes of a true follower of Jesus:

• It is Jesus's first message (Mk. 1.15)
• There's a prominent messianic secret in the Gospel, but to the disciples has been given the secret (Mk. 4.11)
• The kingdom of God is the subject of Jesus's parables in Mark 4.
• The kingdom of God belongs to those who will receive it (Mk. 10.15)

Matthew 27.57 confirms that Joseph was a devoted follower of Jesus.

> Do the majority of modern scholars think that the earth is flat with the sun orbiting around it? Do you think the majority of scholars' views have evolved in favor of more falsehoods?

Of course not, but at one time, they did. My point is that subscription by a majority of scholars is no guarantee of truth.

> Also, wasn't Jesus against handwashing in Mk. 7

No, he was not. The core meaning of the passage is that Jesus is trying to teach them the true meaning of sin and the true meaning of salvation (hearts attuned, v. 6). It is not external “impurities” that defile, but the sin that is in you, and it is not washing that saves you. The core of the passage is found in vv. 14-15: Nothing outside a person is able to defile a person.

Jesus in the passage never spoke against handwashing. He spoke against hypocrisy (Mk. 7.6) and against valuing traditions over God's commands (Mk. 7.9).

> Does he publish peer review on anything let alone the historicity of content only found in Matthew?

You must not be familiar with Habermas. At least take a glance at http://www.garyhabermas.com/publications.htm

> Where did I suggest he ignored Sabbath laws?

"Joe would surely feel pressure to move the body as soon as possible. This would've occurred on Saturday evening, or if he employed the help of non-Jews, any time on Saturday." Your statement implies that he could have been involved in moving the body with the help of non-Jews any time on Saturday, ignoring Sabbath laws.

> The empty tomb is evidence

It's not evidence of reburial, but instead that the body is not there. The empty tomb itself doesn't imply what happened, only that something did.

You still have not given me evidence that the body was likely moved. You've just asserted that Joe was new in town (speculation) and that he felt pressure to get the corpse out of his tomb (unfounded). Neither of these are evidence. Your "naturalistic explanation" fails to carry the case.

> So the go-go boy every time now is Erhman

He's the most popular NT scholar in the world with highly influential views. And he's not the only scholar who believes it. You missed the point: I was arguing in favor of Joseph burying Jesus and offering speculation as to why. Your explanation is that he was a follower of Jesus, but that's contrived and not supported in Mark

> No. Trace through history for the geocentric camp, the flat Earth camp, and the "handwashing is of no benefit" camp

Do the majority of modern scholars think that the earth is flat with the sun orbiting around it? Do you think the majority of scholars' views have evolved in favor of more falsehoods? Also, wasn't Jesus against handwashing in Mk. 7?

> Gary Habermas

Does he publish peer review on anything let alone the historicity of content only found in Matthew?

> he felt pressure to move the body as soon as practically possible [even possibly to the ignoring of Sabbath laws

A non-Jew (like a Roman soldier) could move it any time on Saturday or a Jew on Saturday evening or Sunday morning. Where did I suggest he ignored Sabbath laws?

> There is no evidence of reburial

The empty tomb is evidence, and you admitted that he would've had to "defy his peers"—doesn't that connote social pressure to not have the body in his tomb?

> A mainstream view, including Ehrman's

I love how people who don't want to believe the Gospel accounts just love that they found an advocate in Ehrman while ignoring all the scholarship that his view contrasts. So the go-to boy is now Erhman. His scholarship is not that striking.

> ... is that the body wasn't placed in Joseph's tomb

There is no evidence to this effect. None. If you have it, please let me see it.

> I agree, hence positing Joseph as the sole agent in reburial is unlikely

There is no evidence of reburial, and you have yet to make your case to that effect.

I'm looking for evidence, not a "the majority of scholars" case built on blind faith. "Well, if the majority of scholars believes it, it must be true, right?" No. Trace through history for the geocentric camp, the flat Earth camp, and the "handwashing is of no benefit" camp. There is a myth of public consensus that claims that the truth about a matter is subject to public agreement about that matter. To say so displays a fundamental error of observation and logic. Today's majority can easily be (and has often enough been) tomorrow's embarrassed ones.

> Have you written any peer review on the topic or know a modern scholar who has?

I have written a book on the resurrection, yes, but the scholar who is most published on it is Gary Habermas.

> Is the women fleeing in fear and not telling anyone the truth about what actually happened?

I find no reason to doubt it. The women fled in confusion and fear, afraid to speak. Mary Magdalene, who had lingered behind and actually encountered Jesus, went to the disciples with her message of resurrection, which was met with incredulity but at least curiosity to investigate the evidence.

> Which of those doubts that the tomb was meant as a temporary burial are based solely on Mark?

You have yet to produce a single piece of evidence that the tomb was meant as a temporary burial. So far you've given speculation based on straws (Joseph was new in town; he felt pressure to move the body as soon as practically possible [even possibly to the ignoring of Sabbath laws]).

> You seemed to be implying that his brief time in Jerusalem would be a factor in moving the body

Not in moving the body, in burying it. A mainstream view, including Ehrman's, is that the body wasn't placed in Joseph's tomb

> it would have had to have been a group effort of some sort. Joseph is likely the one heading up the effort

I agree, hence positing Joseph as the sole agent in reburial is unlikely

> Yeah, I really couldn't care less about Allison's view. I have examined the case and found the likelihood plausible enough.

Very interesting. Have you written any peer review on the topic or know a modern scholar who has?

> Why would Roman soldiers be involved in such a conspiracy when Jesus was crucified for treason?

What's the conspiracy?

> Mark employs the criteria of embarrassment and is not afraid to tell the truth about what really happened

Is the women fleeing in fear and not telling anyone the truth about what actually happened?

> You're the one making the case. Don't try to shift the burden of proof to me. You are claiming the body was moved, but I have many reasonable doubts that you are correct about that

Which of those doubts that the tomb was meant as a temporary burial are based solely on Mark?

> I don't see why however long Joseph had lived in Jerusalem is foundational to the argument

You're the one who was making a point of it. You seemed to be implying that his brief time in Jerusalem would be a factor in moving the body. I don't see it in the text, and I don't see it logically, but it was your point, so I'm shrugging my shoulders.

> If he was able to take down and transport the body himself

There's no reason to think he took down the body himself. That would be the job of the Roman soldiers. In Mt. 27.58, Pilate ordered his soldiers that the body be given to Joseph. That would imply the soldiers took it down and turned it over. Now, Mark 15.46 says that Joseph took down the body, but there's no way he could do it alone (removed it from the cross, wrapped it in in linen, placed it in the tomb, and rolled the stone into place); it would have had to have been a group effort of some sort. Joseph is likely the one heading up the effort.

According to the Gospel of John, the tomb was in the same vicinity as the crucifixion—not a long walk.

> if the tomb was new as per Mt. 27:59-60, then he was likely a "relative newcomer to Jerusalem".

I can see what you're saying, but this is far from conclusive enough to build a case on.

The real point is: What evidence do you have that the body was likely moved? That's where your case is slim to nonexistent, but that's what your case is.

> Most scholars including Allison don't think the guards at the tomb are historical

Yeah, I really couldn't care less about Allison's view. I have examined the case and found the likelihood plausible enough.

> the purpose is to setup a polemic against one particular anti-Christian claim of the disciples stealing the body

Yeah, people are wont to read all kinds of political mumbo-jumbo into the Gospels accounts and their purposes. In my study, most of that is spurious with an intent to discredit the Gospels. I don't buy it.

> if there were guards around the tomb, I argue that's evidence in favor of centurions being involved in a reburial as opposed to someone else

Evidence? I'd like to see it. Why would Roman soldiers be involved in such a conspiracy when Jesus was crucified for treason?

> Mark doesn't intend to suggest that the women witnesses are unreliable, unlike the disciples, but that's what the text implies with them fleeing in fear and not telling the disciples.

I explained the rational behind it. It's not that the women are unreliable, but that they failed just like all the other disciples. Mark is the Gospel of Discipleship Failure. One of the ways that Mark portrays Jesus as the suffering king is that all of His followers are failures, and His messianic secret, even in the end, is still secret. Mark's is a Gospel filled with irony, right to the very end, even in resurrection.

> It showing the least amount of legendary development is precisely why I included it

To me, as I mentioned, it doesn't show legendary development but rather honest historical narrative. There's no bright paint brush to make everyone look good, or rose-colored glasses to fool the audience. Mark employs the criteria of embarrassment and is not afraid to tell the truth about what really happened.

> I think the more difficult argument to make 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is why the body was intended to stay in the family tomb indefinitely and why there wouldn't have been pressure from social stigma to move it

You're the one making the case. Don't try to shift the burden of proof to me. You are claiming the body was moved, but I have many reasonable doubts that you are correct about that.

Joseph was a devoted follower. With the courage it took to approach Pilate, in a sense defy his peers, and treat the body with such care, it seems he considered it an honor to have the body of Jesus in his tomb.

I don't see why however long Joseph had lived in Jerusalem is foundational to the argument (except perhaps whether the body was buried based on pity or appeasement), and I mentioned it because Dale Allison made a similar point in a recent interview. If he was able to take down and transport the body himself, he was likely not elderly, and if the tomb was new as per Mt. 27:59-60, then he was likely a "relative newcomer to Jerusalem". He could've been newer than at least some other council members, and his origin from a small town may have influenced his decision to provide an honorable burial to another rural Jew. Crowd appeasement is another hypothesis that's often brought up, but I prefer an explanation from sympathy

Most scholars including Allison don't think the guards at the tomb are historical—the purpose is to setup a polemic against one particular anti-Christian claim of the disciples stealing the body. And to the contrary, the story absolutely "smacks of fantasy" as the tomb is closed (contrary to the other accounts), an earthquake occurs, and an angel rolls away the stone—all witnessed by the guards and reported to the council. Regardless, if there were guards around the tomb, I argue that's evidence in favor of centurions being involved in a reburial as opposed to someone else

Mark doesn't intend to suggest that the women witnesses are unreliable, unlike the disciples, but that's what the text implies with them fleeing in fear and not telling the disciples. It showing the least amount of legendary development is precisely why I included it
I think the more difficult argument to make 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is why the body was intended to stay in the family tomb indefinitely and why there wouldn't have been pressure from social stigma to move it