I'm just about to get into an argument on a history forum:

It's my position that the figure of Joseph of Arimathea (who generously gave Jesus his own tomb) is a pious fiction.

I read a bunch of stuff on the subject years ago,but can't remember where.

Anybody have any ideas?

(PLEASE! No Christian apologists)

I got this from Price's famous book:

"Joseph of Arimathea provides another important piece of the puzzle. Like Judas, Joseph is a fictional character who grows in the telling. For one thing, as Dennis R. MacDonald has shown, he is based on King Priam, begging Agamemnon for the body of his son Hector. It is because he corresponds to the slain hero's father that he is called Joseph.' (Postbiblical legend seems to understand this, since it came close to making this explicit, casting Joseph of Arimathea as Jesus' great uncle,' taking the place of the elderly, then deceased Joseph, husband of Mary.) His town of origin, Arimathea, is made into a pun marking Joseph as another of Todorov's "narrative-men."

Robert M. Price. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? (p. 326). Kindle Edition. "

1. No one has ever been able to identify a place called Arimathea for "Joseph" to be from.

2. As a member of the Sanhedrin, it is presumed that he would have been a Jew.

3. Jews in Judaea used a patronymic name so he would have been "Joseph" son of "Shmecky" ( or whatever.)

4. When the Romans crucified someone they did not allow the body to be taken down for proper burial. The whole point of crucifixion was to make the death as painful and dishonorable as possible.

5. I agree with Price that this character was a later invention in order to get the body off the cross and into a tomb.

I believe he was a random follower of Jesus among dozens of other followers. He really comes into the limelight when he is mentioned in Arthurian legend.

The name Joseph of Arimathea sounds too much like Yosef bar Mattai which is the Aramaic name for Josephus.

Quote:I believe he was a random follower of Jesus among dozens of other followers.

OK. However, you have just made a positive claim; proof please. ( have a look at Minimalist's post above)

Quote:He really comes into the limelight when he is mentioned in Arthurian legend.

So what? That a mythological figure is mentioned in another myth is not proof of his existence.

(May 18, 2012 at 10:19 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:I believe he was a random follower of Jesus among dozens of other followers.

OK. However, you have just made a positive claim; proof please. ( have a look at Minimalist's post above)

Quote:He really comes into the limelight when he is mentioned in Arthurian legend.

So what? That a mythological figure is mentioned in another myth is not proof of his existence.

By stating he is random, it just means he was a regular Joe Shmoe who rarely were recorded in antiquity.

I assume why some of you may be stuck on Joseph of Haramathea is because you know of the Arthurian legend perhaps from watching The Last Crusade.

(May 18, 2012 at 10:45 pm)Polaris Wrote: I assume why some of you may be stuck on Joseph of Haramathea is because you know of the Arthurian legend perhaps from watching The Last Crusade.

You know the statement about making assumptions? Well it applies very strongly to you after that post. The reason most are familiar with that part of the myth is that Joseph of Aramathea was a shameful stealing by the author of Mark (as can easily be seen in the Greek of Mark 14:43 as compared to the Greek of Josephus Life (section 1) which in both instances is Joseph apo Arimathias where in Josephus it was referring to Josephus' grandfather begetting Josephus' father Matthias yet it was altered in Mark because the author liked the following story.

Josephus: Life Section 414 from Whiston’s Translation Wrote:... as I [Joseph Bar Mathias] came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.

You can see in the brackets where the author of Mark shamelessly stole the idea of Joseph of Aramathea. Also it is quite obvious where the story of Jesus being crucified with a criminal on each side of him came from. Also, the apologetic craze of the 18th century called the swoon theory (where Jesus didn't really die on the cross) most likely began after this passage was read.

In case anyone is interested in the full section, it can be found here.

Except that Josephus did not release his first commentary on that part of history until 93/94 CE while it is said the latest Mark was written was 70 CE (it was most likely closer to 40-50 CE...much of the Bible was written prior to 67 CE). Even his commentaries on the Jewish Wars were not until 75 CE.

(May 18, 2012 at 11:44 pm)Polaris Wrote: Except that Josephus did not release his first commentary on that part of history until 93/94 CE while it is said the latest Mark was written was 70 CE (it was most likely closer to 40-50 CE...much of the Bible was written prior to 67 CE). Even his commentaries on the Jewish Wars were not until 75 CE.

Why is it not surprising to find an ignorant Christian? Please direct me to the earliest manuscript we have of Mark's gospel. I'll make it easier for you, make it a partial or full manuscript of any of the four canonical gospels.