(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.
