Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Secret Alias »

It is odd that someone who isn't a disciple is suddenly introduced into the gospel narrative - a 'respectable' Jew who has no discernible or implied connection to Christianity. Why is this? I think it is merely to establish that the body was placed in the tomb so that the empty tomb can be significant when the stone is now 'strangely' rolled away - i.e. the stone is rolled, the tomb empty when 'the Jews themselves' placed the body first in the tomb and sealed it with the stone. If his family took the body and placed it in the tomb and sealed it and then all that follows we see the origin of the Jewish 'propaganda' mentioned in Matthew, Justin and Tertullian - namely 'they' (the Christians) fiddled around with the body to arrange for the empty tomb business.

I think this is fairly reasonable. Given that, it would seem that the narrator doesn't have to be an 'eyewitness.' What I mean is that he seems to know all about this 'Joseph of Arimathea.' If the whole Joseph digression (which is strangely uniform in all the gospels) was invented then anyone could have invented this fiction from anywhere. Indeed it is completely unnatural to suppose that someone from Judea wouldn't have family present at such a trial. True Jesus's mother is present in later narratives. But let's consider this both ways. On the one hand Mark has Mary the mother of James and Salome (the mother of the Zebedee sons) present at the tomb. Matthew has Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons. Luke Joanna, Mary the mother of James. John forgoes mothers present at the empty tomb and instead has them at the crucifixion - Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

If - as I think is true - the 'separated' gospels represent pieces of supergospels deliberately 'broken up.' The question becomes was the mother of the crucified one present at the crucifixion and later at the tomb? I don't know. Yes the Marcionites understood 'Jesus' to be without mother and family. But what if they were separationists as the earliest users of Mark were. The Christ could certainly have had his mother standing at the cross and later at his tomb. It would be only natural. Moreover the early Jewish detractors of Christianity seem to imply that the burial of the body was entirely handled by the circle of the crucified one - which would only be natural.

To this end, given the strange uniformity in all the gospels - even John - regarding this figure of 'Joseph of Arimathea - you'd have to think that his involvement was a later addition, perhaps by an orthodox redactor, to silence Jewish criticism of the empty tomb.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Secret Alias »

And notice that apologists 'like' the burial accounts because of their 'straightforward' reporting:
the burial accounts are all brief, simple, and free of any apparent theologizing or miraculous elements to which skeptics might object.https://books.google.com/books?id=jY0rA ... YQ6AEIKjAA
I would even go so far in the other direction to argue that they are un-Markan and at odds with the style and tenor of everything that precede them.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Charles Wilson »

SA --
Michael Turton wrote:Markan style is strongly present, for Mark 16 consists almost entirely of common Markan words (Donahue and Harrington 2002, p459, citing Taylor 1966, p603).
AND:
The chiastic structure here crosses a chapter boundary, showing how badly Mark has been cut up by traditional interpreters. The chiasm runs:

A There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

_____B And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,

__________C Joseph of Arimathe'a, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.

_______________D And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.

_______________D And he bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.

__________C Mary Mag'dalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

_____B And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

A And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
Here is the problem: There is both Markan Chiastic Structure and evidence of further Redaction at this Passage.

To your Question: J of Arimathea is presented in a "Miracle Context". If, however the Markan Author wrote the Story and LATER the Story was not seen as "Miraculous Enough" then this Section with the Empty Tomb was added before the Markan Author finished. That is, if the Empty Tomb shows Markan Chiastic Structure, the Markan Author wrote it. He wrote, however, with the Empty Tomb Additions given to him before he finished. His Story shows that he blended the given-to-him Empty Tomb Story as a matter of course. Later, the "Finished Mark" wasn't finished enough and the Redactor, not aware of the artistic work in his hands, mangled his insertions.

Nice work, SA.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Secret Alias »

Anybody can make anything look chiastic by spreading out the sentences indented into the page with letters like this. I don't see a chiasm.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Charles Wilson »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:26 am Anybody can make anything look chiastic by spreading out the sentences indented into the page with letters like this. I don't see a chiasm.
Fair enough. This Forum has had arguments in the past over the Nature and Existence of the Markan Chiasm. We will again.

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html

"Be aware that such constructions can never be more than reasonably possible. To reconstruct Markan chiasms is to make an assertion that one has access to the mind of the author, always an iffy supposition. Further, the Gospel of Mark has been redacted. Material has been removed, edited, or replaced. At least two verses appear to have dropped out for no reason at all, as my chiastic structures appear to reveal. This makes all chiasms suspect..."

Scroll down about halfway and you'll find an explanation.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Secret Alias »

I will also say that this historical layering (in reverse order) does seem to argue for either historicity or a lost proto-gospel i.e.:
4. Matthew 28:15 "And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day." Patristic references to Jews claiming the disciples moved the body to make the tomb empty.
3. Joseph of Arimathea takes the body into the tomb (to prove the tomb's emptiness was a miracle)
2. Jews must have been saying the disciples or his family removed his body from the tomb to prove a miracle.
1. Eye-witness testimony, oral or written documents suggesting his family or disciples took away the crucified one's dead body
There seems to have been actual Jewish knowledge (whether from eye-witness, oral or written documents) of an alternative scenario where the crucified one's body fell not to a disinterested Jew (= Joseph of Arimathea) but to a core group of intimates (i.e. either family or friends) who could have been responsible for emptying the tomb to make it seem miraculous or the fulfillment of prophesy.

But there is something older than our present gospels which accounted for the Jews suggesting his friends or family emptied the tomb.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by lsayre »

I think Joseph of Arimathea = Josephus Bar Mathea = Flavius Josephus, and the entire story is a fictionalized drama spun off of the real event wherein Josephus asked for three crucified friends to be cut down, and one lived while the other two died.

Someone (John2 perhaps?) posted this connection here on the forum awhile back, and it sounds quite logical to me.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by DCHindley »

lsayre wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:10 pm I think Joseph of Arimathea = Josephus Bar Mathea = Flavius Josephus, and the entire story is a fictionalized drama spun off of the real event wherein Josephus asked for three crucified friends to be cut down, and one lived while the other two died.

Someone (John2 perhaps?) posted this connection here on the forum awhile back, and it sounds quite logical to me.
There used to be those who believe, even today, that Josephus was a closet Christian. I think this goes back to William Whiston in the early decades of the 18th century.

Do you suspect this? I've actually once ran across a business manager at one company I visited who confidently asserted that Josephus testified about Christ. Everything I had learned about the testimonium flavianum in Antiquities 18.63-64 suggested it was not original as it stood.

Personally, I think that POV is due to wishful thinking.

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias, formatting slightly altered wrote: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:26 am A1. Anybody can make anything look chiastic
--- B1. by spreading out the sentences
------ C. indented into the page
--- B2. with letters like this.
A2. I don't see a chiasm.
The term "chiasm" or its adjectival sibling mentioned both at the beginning and at the end. "Sentences" versus "letters" in the secondary brackets, "page" in the middle. Very nice. :)
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is it Fair to Say that Joseph of Arimathea Was Introduced to Prove the Empty Tomb Was Miraculous?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

As for the OP, I have long followed Crossan on this:

Acts 13.26-29: 26 "Brethren, sons of Abraham’s family, and those among you who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent. 27 For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him. 28 And though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed. 29 When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb."

The speeches in Acts often seem to preserve early stuff. This particular speech has Jesus apparently being buried by foes, not by friends. Joseph of Arimathea, then, might have been introduced to give Jesus a decent burial by well-wishers or even friends or followers.

This is the sort of thing, I have noticed, that a lot of modern interpreters do not seem to fancy. I suspect it is because giving the hero a decent burial is very much an ancient impulse, not so much a modern one.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply