“Answering Agnostic Bart D. Ehrman on the Gospel Accounts of Jesus’ Burial” provides a comprehensive response to agnostic scholar Bart D. Ehrman’s criticisms of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial. Using the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation and focusing on the consistency within the Scriptural records, it seeks to address the objections and present a clear, evidence-based understanding of this significant event.

Ehrman’s Article: Literary Problems with the Gospel Accounts of Jesus’ Burial

It is clear that the article by Bart D. Ehrman raises several issues and concerns about the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial, particularly focusing on the role of Joseph of Arimathea. As a conservative Bible scholar, I would like to address some of the points raised by Dr. Ehrman and provide a historical and biblical context to clarify these matters.

1. Joseph of Arimathea’s Role in Jesus’ Burial: Dr. Ehrman challenges the credibility of Joseph of Arimathea’s involvement in Jesus’ burial. The Gospel of Matthew is the earliest account that provides details about Jesus’ burial and Joseph of Arimathea’s role in it (Matthew 27:57-61). Contrary to Ehrman’s criticism, the Gospels provide a nuanced picture of the Jewish authorities, and it is plausible that a member of the Sanhedrin who had been sympathetic to Jesus would gather the courage to ask Pilate for Jesus’ body. The Gospel accounts, dating from 45-50 C.E. for Matthew, do not necessarily claim that all members of the Sanhedrin were unanimously against Jesus. Therefore, the presence of dissenting voices within the Sanhedrin, not explicitly mentioned, aligns with the historical and Scriptural context, refuting the objections raised by Ehrman. NOTE: Matthew is the earliest account. We do not follow literary criticism as my custom instructions make clear: The Gospels date as follows: Matthew was written about 45-50 C.E., Luke was written about 56–58 C.E., Mark was written about 60–65 C.E., and John was written about 98 C.E. The Gospel of Matthew is the first book in the Greek New Testament and has been recognized as the first Gospel written since ancient times. Researchers believe that Matthew penned his Gospel in Hebrew just twelve years after Jesus’ death in 33 C.E. and then translated it into Greek soon after. Unlike some modern scholars who argue that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and a hypothetical document called “Q” to write their Gospels, I firmly reject this idea. There is no evidence for the existence of the so-called Q document, and the two-source hypothesis doesn’t align with a historical understanding of the Scriptures.

2. Paul’s Silence on Joseph of Arimathea: Ehrman notes that Paul does not mention Joseph of Arimathea in his letters. However, it is not necessarily a problem that Paul does not name Joseph in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. The primary purpose of the passage is to summarize the core elements of the gospel message, not to provide a detailed account of Jesus’ burial.

3. The Burial Tradition in Acts: The statement in Acts 13:28-29 does not necessarily contradict the Gospel accounts. The passage does not deny the role of Joseph; rather, it summarizes the actions of the Jewish leaders and their responsibility for Jesus’ death. This could be understood as a rhetorical simplification for the sake of the argument being made by Paul in his speech.

4. Embellishments and Evolving Traditions: Dr. Ehrman argues that the story of Joseph of Arimathea may be an embellishment or a later development. The account of Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus’ burial is neither an embellishment nor a later development. It is vital to recognize that the Bible was inspired by God, and the authors were guided by the Holy Spirit, who does not use embellished material. Although textual variants entered the text through hand-copying over 1500 years, none of them impacted this account. Many esteemed textual scholars have devoted their lives to restoring the original words of the original texts. Thanks to their efforts, and with resources like the 1881 Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament and the 2012 28th edition of the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament, the Greek New Testament now reflects 99.99% of the original. Therefore, the portrayal of Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the council that condemned Jesus, must be understood as a faithful reflection of historical events and not a creation of later church tradition. The consistent presence of a proper burial across the accounts, with a known tomb, points to a foundational historical event. It is also unlikely that the early Christians would invent a character like Joseph of Arimathea, who is portrayed as a member of the very council that condemned Jesus.

5. The Integrity of the Gospel Accounts: The Gospel writers were not merely recording history but were interpreting it from a theological perspective. They selected and presented their material to convey particular theological messages. Yet, they did this based on being moved along by the Holy Spirit and true and accurate information. The variations between the Gospels can often be harmonized, and differences in detail do not necessarily mean historical unreliability. John 14:26 says, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

6. The Historical Burial Practice: Finally, the practice of burial itself aligns with what we know of Jewish customs at the time. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 6:5-6) confirms that even those crucified were to be given proper burial before sundown. It is not unlikely that a member of the Sanhedrin would take responsibility to ensure that this law was upheld.

While Dr. Ehrman raises thought-provoking questions, a careful analysis of the text within its historical and Jewish context provides reasonable answers. The Gospel accounts of Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea are not implausible or contradictory. Rather, they are part of the complex tapestry of early Christian oral history and reflect the early Christians’ understanding of historical events, which was then put into writing by men being moved along by the Holy Spirit. The assertion that Joseph of Arimathea’s involvement is a late or fictitious development does not hold up under scrutiny. The testimony of the Gospels, while shaped by theological convictions, remains rooted in historical memory and provides valuable insight into the events surrounding Jesus’ death and burial.

Yes, genuine conservative New Testament Bible scholars recognize that theological convictions shaped the Gospels, but they would see this as being in harmony with historical accuracy. The writers of the Gospels, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded the life and teachings of Jesus Christ with a view to present certain theological truths to their intended audiences.

For example, the Gospel of John is often understood as emphasizing Jesus’ divine nature and His relationship with the Father, while the Gospel of Matthew may be seen as highlighting Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and the rightful heir to David’s throne. These theological emphases do not negate the historical accuracy of the events they describe but rather provide insight into the particular aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry that the Gospel writers were guided to emphasize.

It’s important to understand that conservative scholars would affirm that while the authors of the Gospels had theological aims, this did not lead them to distort or fabricate the historical events they were recording. Rather, their theological convictions guided them in selecting and presenting the events and teachings of Jesus in a way that would convey the divinely inspired message they were entrusted to deliver. The commitment to both historical truth and theological purpose is seen as fully compatible within a conservative view of Scripture.

Quotes from Ehrman’s Article That are Historically Inaccurate

Ehrman Statement 1:

“There are numerous reasons for doubting the tradition of Jesus’ burial by Joseph.”

Response: The Gospel accounts are consistent in naming Joseph of Arimathea as the person who took charge of Jesus’ burial (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:42-46; Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42). Although Ehrman suggests a contradiction with Acts 13:29, the passage does not necessarily conflict with the Gospel accounts. Acts 13:29 does not specify who took Jesus down from the tree, but it does not preclude Joseph of Arimathea from being involved. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Joseph, as a member of the Sanhedrin, acted on behalf of the council in burying Jesus.

Ehrman Statement 2:

“In other words, according to Mark himself, this unknown person, Joseph, was one of the people who had called for Jesus’ death just the night before he was crucified.”

Response: The assumption that Joseph of Arimathea had called for Jesus’ death is not supported by the Gospel text. The text states that the Sanhedrin sought evidence against Jesus (Mark 14:55), but it does not detail the individual opinions of each member. Joseph of Arimathea is described as “a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God” (Mark 15:43). His actions in providing a decent burial for Jesus align with his expectation of the kingdom of God.

Ehrman Statement 3:

“This is a different tradition. There is no word of Joseph here, any more than there is in Paul’s own letters. Does this older (pre-Lukan) tradition represent an older tradition than what is found in Mark about Joseph of Arimathea?”

Response: It’s essential not to confuse a summary or partial recounting of an event with a different tradition. Acts 13:29 does not contradict the detailed Gospel accounts but offers a more concise version of the events. The silence about Joseph of Arimathea in Paul’s letters is not evidence against his existence or role in Jesus’ burial. Paul’s letters address specific theological and practical issues in the churches, and the absence of details about Jesus’ burial does not imply a rejection or ignorance of those details.

Ehrman Statement 4:

“As the tradition came to be told and retold, it possibly became embellished and made more concrete.”

Response: This assertion assumes a development or evolution of the tradition without solid evidence to support it. The Gospels were written within a timeframe when eyewitnesses were still alive, and the details provided are consistent with the historical and cultural context. The portrayal of Joseph of Arimathea is consistent across the Gospels and does not display signs of embellishment or legendary development.

Ehrman Statement 5:

“In other words, according to Mark himself, this unknown person, Joseph, was one of the people who had called for Jesus’ death just the night before he was crucified.”

Response: This is not accurate. Mark does not say that Joseph called for Jesus’ death. Rather, Mark identifies Joseph as a “respected member of the council” (Mark 15:43 ESV). It is conceivable that Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin who voted to condemn Jesus, but it is equally possible that he did not. The text does not definitively state one way or the other.

Ehrman Statement 6:

“My hunch is that the trial narrative is from a different set of traditions inherited by Mark from the burial narrative.”

Response: This statement reflects pure speculation on Ehrman’s part. There is no evidence in Scripture to support the claim that the trial narrative and the burial narrative are derived from different traditions.

Ehrman Statement 7:

“Paul shows no evidence of knowing anything about a Joseph of Arimathea or a decent burial of Jesus by a “respected member of the council.”

Response: This claim is also not accurate. Although Paul does not mention Joseph of Arimathea by name, he does reference Jesus being “buried” (1 Corinthians 15:4 ESV). This does not necessarily imply that Paul knew about Joseph, but it does indicate that he was aware of the historical event of Jesus being buried.

Conclusion:

Ehrman’s skepticism concerning the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea does not adequately account for the internal coherence of the Gospel accounts, the historical context, and the purpose of the New Testament writings. The literal and historical-grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures supports the historicity of Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea, and the criticisms raised do not provide compelling reasons to doubt this tradition.

About the Author

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION