Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

1) John the Baptist, the baptism and the fast in wilderness

2) an exorcism in a synagogue in Capernaum

3) the sending of the paralitic to the high priest

4) the secrecy of the parables + the explanation of the Parable of Sower.

5) Nazaret

6) king Herod and John the Baptist

7) healing of a deaf mute.

8) Moses and Elijiah

8) the request of the sons of Zebedee

9) the donkey

10) the temple episode and the fig tree

11) parable of the vine-dressers.

12) David

13) the giving of the widow

14) conversion of Peter

15) Barabbas

16) Simon of Cyrene

17) Joseph of Arimathea.

You tend to reach conclusions from a few assumptions (not dissimilar to Stephen Huller's habit, although in a different direction) which contradict the actual evidence, based on your predetermined understanding of the Marcionite text and the relationship to the other books of the NT.

Let's start from #17 and work up. Adversus Marcionem 4.42.8 we get this comment

[8] The only shift left to the impudence of the heretics, is to admit that what remained there was the phantom of a phantom! But what if Joseph knew that it was a body which he treated with so much piety? That same Joseph "who had not consented" with the Jews in their crime?

The last sentence is an example of where Tertullian uses an argument from the Catholic text and not the Marcionite (Note: Oehler points out that Epiphanius lifts 'this argument ... to prove the reality of Christ's body' - Hoeres. xl. Confut. 74). We see this in Epiphanius' report (P 42.11.6.74) of the text of Marcion's Gospel corresponding to Luke 23:50-53 (all words present in Luke 23:50, 52, 53)

'And behold, a man named Joseph took the body down, wrapped it in linen and laid it in a sepulcher that was cut out of the rock.'
Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι Ἰωσήφ, καθελὼν τὸ σῶμα ἐνετύλιξε σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν ἐν μνήματι λαξευτῷ.

So Joseph was present in Marcion's Gospel. (Note, this is a cautionary tale in reading the evidence of Tertullian, when he does not explicitly quote the Marcionite text, as he often refers to the Lukan text, as above with 23:51, which is not present in Marcion; verse 23:51 is pointedly anti-Marcionite).

Marcion, simply says "a man named Joseph." Matthew says this Joseph was from Arimathea and was a disciple of Jesus and he was rich. John says Joseph of Arimathea he was a disciple, but secretly due to fears of the Jews (Jewish Christians who believed in a Davidic Jesus, i.e., Matthew's Jesus). And Mark says Joseph of Arimathea was a prominent member of the council (βουλευτής) "who was also looking for the kingdom of God." Luke expands on Mark saying "Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathe'a. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, who had not consented to their purpose and deed, and he was looking for the kingdom of God."

What I see going on is the filling out of a story from one to the next. John is patently anti-Matthew here, as it almost always is. Mark develops the apocryphal legend beyond Matthew, and Luke even further, and as with his Pilate version, exonerates Joseph of responsibility in Jesus' death; an exoneration only necessary by the growth in the apocryphal story and to fit the theology Luke presents. There is nothing explicitly anti-Marcionite in Joseph. What is anti-Marcionite is the commentary on Jesus' body for the obvious anti-Docetic purposes.

There are several more sloppy conclusions other than #17 which don't hold up under examination. But I think the above demonstrates my point.

There is nothing explicitly anti-Marcionite in Joseph. What is anti-Marcionite is the commentary on Jesus' body for the obvious anti-Docetic purposes

I have thought that "Arimathea" contains in nuce the name of the anti-marcionite Matthew. The "best disciple" for Marcion could be only Paul.

The name Ἁριμαθαία is simply symbolic, can be said to be a pun on "the best disciple". Best explanation I could find in 2 minutes

http://www.tektonics.org/af/arimfake.php

Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:58 am The name Ἁριμαθαία is simply symbolic, can be said to be a pun on "the best disciple". Best explanation I could find in 2 minutes.

Why settle on mere puns when there is an easy, obvious derivation from a known town name? Joseph of Arimathea is Ἰωσὴφ ὁ ἀπὸ Ἁριμαθαίας in Mark 15.43; this is simple to interpret as a town called Ramah (height) or Ramoth (heights), of which there were apparently several in the region. This name gets rendered as Ramathaim-Zophim (הָרָמָתַ֛יִם צוֹפִ֖ים) in 1 Samuel 1.1 (1 Kingdoms 1.1 LXX: Αρμαθαιμ Σιφα), or as just plain Αρμαθαιμ in 1 Kingdoms 1.3, 19 LXX. In Joshua 20.8 LXX it comes out as Αρημωθ. Joshua 19.36 in Vaticanus has Αρμαιθ where in Alexandrinus we find Ραμα. Also possibly related is the epistle of Demetrius to Lasthenes (1 Maccabees 11.32-37 = Josephus, Antiquities 13.4.9 §127-129a), which mentions the taking possession of the three districts of Aphairema, Lydda, and Rathamin/Ramathain (Ραθαμιν in 1 Maccabees 11.34, but Ραμαθαιν in Antiquities 13.4.9 §127).

(The names with an initial R are simply anarthrous, whereas those with an initial A are including the Hebrew definite article in the name.)

This seems a straightforward derivation, so far as names go from Hebrew into Greek. Arimathea is simply a Greek rendering of one of the towns called Ramah or Ramoth. This obviously does not rule out the pun as a reason for selecting this town, but to start with the pun seems unnecessary.

Also, if it is a pun, why ἄρι[στος] μαθη[τής]? Why not ἀρί[στη] μάθη? That is a closer fit, right? No pesky disappearing tau to worry about.

Giuseppe is playing on the symbolism. And in this respect I sort of agree with him, as most of the names are double meaning, as you'd expect from characters in a play or literature. Thus the actual town is irrelevant, an invention to fit the moment. So pick a town that is also a pun. "A disciple from (being) 'the best disciple'"

It's a rather tangential point. What I tried to show is how one can see the development from one small element and then snowballing into a full story line. He is named Joe --> Joe is rich, a disciple from Arimathea (best disciple) --> Joe of Arimathea, as he was rich, was a member of the council, and he was looking for God's kingdom --> Joe from the Jewish town of Arimathea (lost the pun) may have been on the council, but he was a good guy not one of those who consented to killing the lord, as he was looking for God's kingdom. This is simply classic case of filling in the back story.

Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:08 pm Giuseppe is playing on the symbolism. And in this respect I sort of agree with him, as most of the names are double meaning, as you'd expect from characters in a play or literature. Thus the actual town is irrelevant, an invention to fit the moment. So pick a town that is also a pun. "A disciple from (being) 'the best disciple'"

It's a rather tangential point. What I tried to show is how one can see the development from one small element and then snowballing into a full story line. He is named Joe --> Joe is rich, a disciple from Arimathea (best disciple) --> Joe of Arimathea, as he was rich, was a member of the council, and he was looking for God's kingdom --> Joe from the Jewish town of Arimathea (lost the pun) may have been on the council, but he was a good guy not one of those who consented to killing the lord, as he was looking for God's kingdom. This is simply classic case of filling in the back story.

Does this work, say, for Bethphage?

Ben,

Why does it need to? One case does not mean it applies in all others. I suggest you go investigate yourself (I'm not your research assistant) and start a new thread topic on that, since it's not part of Giuseppe's list, and therefore off topic.

Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:08 pm Giuseppe is playing on the symbolism. And in this respect I sort of agree with him, as most of the names are double meaning, as you'd expect from characters in a play or literature. Thus the actual town is irrelevant, an invention to fit the moment. So pick a town that is also a pun. "A disciple from (being) 'the best disciple'"

It's a rather tangential point. What I tried to show is how one can see the development from one small element and then snowballing into a full story line. He is named Joe --> Joe is rich, a disciple from Arimathea (best disciple) --> Joe of Arimathea, as he was rich, was a member of the council, and he was looking for God's kingdom --> Joe from the Jewish town of Arimathea (lost the pun) may have been on the council, but he was a good guy not one of those who consented to killing the lord, as he was looking for God's kingdom. This is simply classic case of filling in the back story.

Stuart , It truly amazes me that anyone could understand the OP!!
The OP is a windmill.

http://www.lookandlearn.com/blog/12750/ ... eat-novel/

We can easily turn that around and put a list of anti-Markan (or anti-Matthean, or anti-Johannine, or, more appropriate, anti-Lukan) things in Marcion's gospel.
The "things" would be omissions & modifications in Marcion's gospel.

Cordially, Bernard