Help! Joseph of Arimathea.

[Minimalist]

I don't mind Polaris, Pad....the one below you I'm not so sure about.

There is room for argument about this shit. The problem with theists is that they think there isn't.

[King_Charles]

I don't mind Polaris, Pad....the one below you I'm not so sure about.

There is room for argument about this shit. The problem with theists is that they think there isn't.

OK let's argue then: "Further, the style of address is Greco-Roman. "Joe of ........ " was used in the Greco-Roman world. A jew and a member of a priestly family would have been known as "Joe son of Whoever." "

Not always, naming convention in the Greco-Roman world used kinship as well as place names eg“Hector son of Priam”. And while it was most often kinship in the Hebrew tradition this was not always the case: remember our little ruckus about "Jesus of Nazarath"? As well as this there is referred to in 2 Samuel "Ahithophel the Gilonite" so it is possible to read too much into this.

Secondly the construction "Joseph of Aramthia" is a trick of translation that makes it seems as if this were his formal naming style. In two gospel he isn't called anything like it, Matthew the construction is "απο αριμαθαιας/ τουνομα ιωσηφ" Literally [a rich man] "out of Aramathia/ to a name Joseph". Luke he is reffered to as "a man named Joseph" and in the next verse says he was from Aramathia. In John and Mark it's "Iωσὴφ ἀπὸ Ἁριμαθαίας", "ἀπὸ" meaning off, away from, out of. "Of" is a good translation for most purposes, but the construction is not a naming one. A more literal translation might be "Joseph coming from Aramathia". Compare the regular construction of Greek name with a place. Diocles of Carystus is rendered in ancient Greek as "Διοκλῆς ὁ Καρύστιος" Literally: "Diocles he of Cartstus".
The fact that Aramathia is mentioned in all four gospels does highlight, however, that Aramathia was important to the writers for some reason. One reason might be that, if he was a Sanhedrin, then it would be important to note which council he served on – he was presumably not invited to the council that tried Jesus so was most likely a member of the Sanhedrin of a nearby town, possibly Ramatha, or Ramah (the name was probably obscured in the rendering of the Hebrew script into the Greek) and a member of the Great Sanhedrin, which I doubt would have been called for the trial of a blasphemer.

OK, this is my argument; you’re welcome to rip into it now, just promise not to throw your toys out of the pram because someone has the audacity to disagree with your opinion.

Also giveusahug you minimal lil thing you!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

OK, this is my argument; you’re welcome to rip into it now, just promise not to throw your toys out of the pram because someone has the audacity to disagree with your opinion.

OK, I don't read Greek so cannot argue that point.

The guy is called Joseph of/from Arimathea . Could you please explain where that place was, within reasonable doubt,rather than vague guesses?

So far I have seen no credible evidence supporting the view that Joseph of Arimathea is anything more than a literally device to get Jesus from cross to tomb.

I have also always found it hard to believe the Romans would have released Jesus' body to his family at all,let alone a matter of hours after his death. Possible of course,but highly unlikely.

Given that THOUSANDS of Jews were crucified in Judea under Roman occupation, it is reasonable to suppose many others had been left on the cross over the sabbath and even at Passover,as common Roman practice. I find the argument of Roman deference to Jewish sensibilities a bit precious and not credible. (and unsupported by ANY contemporary evidence)

The fact that Aramathia is mentioned in all four gospels does highlight, however, that Aramathia was important to the writers for some reason.

It does no such thing. All four gospels have the same base source; Mark. The others may simply been using what was already written. The most that may be reasonably said is that inclusion in all four gospel seems to suggest an importance,but it infers nothing.

[King_Charles]

You can't offer credible evidence to the value of scientific truths when you're dealing with ancient history, you just have to try and feel your way to the most likely conclusion, and that involves a lot of educated guesswork. That is the nature of the discipline. If you're of the opinion that he's just a literary device, I'm not gonna stop you, I was just picking on on Minni's point about the Greek Name and offering an alternate reason for the ambiguities surrounding "Aramathia".

As to your second point, the answer to that is actually contained within my post. From the conquest of Pompey in ~ 63 B.C up to 70 A.D. Judea was a client kingdom of the Romans with its own King and allowed a degree of self government - the Sanhedrin still had considerable power over Jewish affairs, and the Jews were allowed to keep many of their practices and were respected. The Romans wanted to rule the Jews peaceably with a collaboration government, and Judea had been a client kingdom of one sort or another for the past few hundred years anyway, so it wasn't a huge issue for them. For various reasons went to shit from 66 A.D. and in the decades that followed the Romans faced three separate uprising from the Jews. In the end the Roman gave up trying the govern them all and effectively ethnically cleansed the area, leading to the Jewish dispora which lasted until a mere 64 years ago.

If you're interested in all this, read The Jewish War, by Josephus. You may be familiar with it because he mentions Christians in like one line, but it really is a very good bit of narrative history about this utterly fascinating period of history.

"The most that may be reasonably said is that inclusion in all four gospel seems to suggest an importance,but it infers nothing. " ~ Yeah I'll agree with that.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

You can't offer credible evidence to the value of scientific truths when you're dealing with ancient history, you just have to try and feel your way to the most likely conclusion, and that involves a lot of educated guesswork. That is the nature of the discipline.

Crossed wires I think,it is not my intention to expect such.. I'm acutely aware of the problems with studying ancient history. The best that can ever be said about any event thousands of years ago is "x may be/is probably/most likely to be the case. There is not anything at all unreasonable to expect there to be some first century record of a town/city called 'Arimathea'. I accept absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it IS enough to decline to believe a claim.

Whenever claims of fact are made for any sacred text, I demand the same standards of proof historians use generally. Any educated guesswork must based on evidence to be credible. Generally, historians demand supporting contemporary evidence. Neither the Torah nor the New Testament meet that minimum standard. As such neither are credible prime source historical sources.


Such claims are even more absurd when one considers the arbitrary manner in which the Christian canon was chosen in the fourth century as well as the errors, contradictions and likely forgeries included.

References:


Bart Ehrman: 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'Lost Christianities'


Sorry, I'm at the end of my interest in this discussion.

[King_Charles]

You can't offer credible evidence to the value of scientific truths when you're dealing with ancient history, you just have to try and feel your way to the most likely conclusion, and that involves a lot of educated guesswork. That is the nature of the discipline.

Whenever claims of fact are made for any sacred text, I demand the same standards of proof historians use generally. Any educated guesswork must based on evidence to be credible. Generally, historians demand supporting contemporary evidence. Neither the Torah nor the New Testament meet that minimum standard. As such neither are credible prime source historical sources.

Then, I'm sorry to say it, but you really don't have a good grasp on how ancient history works... just because a text isn't credible, (I challange you to fine one that is 100% credible!) it doesn't mean it was created in a vacuum. ALL ancient texts are historical sources, what you can infer from each one, whether it be nothing more that social or cultural valuee, or perpectives on issues of the day for a group of people, or things more concrete like the life of an individual or political changes is what varies.

And for Bart Ehrman, who you have in your references, the New Testament is certainly a historical source for the life of Jesus, not a reliable one, not an unbiased one, but still a source.

"Ehrman points out that only about 3 percent of Jews in Jesus' time were literate, and Romans never kept detailed records. (Decades after Jesus' crucifixion, three Roman writers mention Jesus in passing, as does the Jewish historian Josephus.) Though the Gospel accounts are biased, they cannot be discounted as non-historical. As for Jesus being a Jewish version of the pagan dying and rising god, Ehrman shows that there is no evidence the Jews of Jesus' day worshipped pagan gods. If anything, Jesus was deeply rooted in Jewish, rather than Roman, traditions."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03...00465.html

Sorry, I'm at the end of my interest in this discussion.

That's a shame, I learned a lot of interesting things researching things for this thread. See you around!

[Gooders1002]

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.

Well as it turns out, Arthur fought off the Saxons as was (according to so historians) of Sarmatian desent. any holy grail stuff is added B.S. (makes great story telling and humour [Monty python and the holy grail])

[Epimethean]

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. "

This may have been covered somewhere in the thread, but Priam begged Achilles, not Agamemnon, for Hector's body. It's a big difference and a major distinction.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

This may have been covered somewhere in the thread, but Priam begged Achilles, not Agamemnon, for Hector's body. It's a big difference and a major distinction.

It's probably a simple gaffe. His source is pages 154-155 of this book http://books.google.com/books?id=8JkFqMXX6WAC which might explain the mistake but page 155 isn't available on the preview.

[Epimethean]

Pretty bad error if so.