Ben C Smith

I pointed to the first prior use of this phrase by the author, and argued that, for the author, it presumed a more general knowledge of the topic amongst the Jews.

I agree. But I gave two possible reasons for Mark having chosen to do so, the second of which you have not responded to yet:

1. Jesus was the only one Mark cared about for the sake of the story.
2. Jesus was the only one who was dead by this time.

I do not have to assume that Mark was a poor writer. I do not in fact presume that, though I doubt he was quite the genius that some here take him to be.

Agreed.

Okay, I see now what you were driving at.

However, in Mark, while the phrase kingdom of God is certainly a cornerstone of dominical teaching, it is not, judging from Mark 1.14, imagined as unique to Jesus. Nor is the fuller phrase seeking the kingdom of God part of his teaching.

I see that connection, and have potentially explained it in several ways.

I understand that fully, and in no way wish to diminish the combination of those phrases.

I stated that the disciples were given the mystery of the kingdom. I also stated that the crowds were not. Mark 4.10-11, 34b:

As soon as he was alone, those around him, along with the twelve, began asking him about the parables. And he was saying to them: To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables.

...but he was explaining everything privately to his own disciples.

The hard line that I introduced into the discussion was meant to separate these groups, as Mark himself manifestly separates them. If that term is confusing to you, I invite you to dispense with it.

Mark seems to have made a bigger deal of the line between insiders and outsiders than you are making.

I agree... sort of. I doubt the author had to struggle very hard here to make the disciples look bad.

But, again, the original topic was whether the very name of Joseph of Arimathea was part of a replacement program. In your judgment, did Mark settle on Joseph because he was to be the replacement, as it were, for Joses the brother of Jesus?

Ben.

Amaleq13

The presumption of prior general knowledge (which I do not dispute) is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the author makes it clear this was the entire point of Jesus' preaching.

On a related note, am I recalling correctly that the literal meaning of the name of this alleged town (Arimathea)?

Am I recalling correctly that the literal meaning of the name of this alleged town is "best disciple"?is "best disciple"?

I think there is no question about the first being true but the author seems to me to be indicating Josephus asked for Jesus by name as opposed to simply showing up and asking for any dead Jews that might be laying about.

There is no indication this was just a coincidence. There is no indication this was a regular practice of Joseph's that just happened to include Jesus this time. What is indicated, however, is that Joseph knew Jesus had been crucified and knew that Jesus was dead but without anyone to claim his body.

Given your reading, I see no other possibility than to assume the author did a horrible job expressing himself in writing. I don't make that assumption nor do I assume he was a genius. I simply assume that he chose his words for a reason and the one I offer is clearly the most obvious.

You just prefer to avoid the most obvious reason for his particular choices here? He chose to describe Joseph with a direct connection to Jesus' gospel and he chose to describe Joseph as specifically requesting Jesus' body. The authors of Matthew and Luke agree with me against you as to what the author intended here. You can't argue with them, Ben, you are a Christian.

It doesn't have to be unique to Jesus to support my position. It just as to be established as central to the teachings of Jesus and it is.

It doesn't have to be since it is obvious that those seeking what Jesus was teaching were prime candidates for becoming actual followers.

You've offered explanation for each phrase but nothing that really addresses the deliberate choice of the author to apply both to his only description of Joseph.

They were given an explicit explanation of the mystery but they didn't understand it. Everybody else was given the mystery in parable form and, I would assume, only the really bright ones actually got it. Seems like less of an actual division than an unsuccessful attempt to create one.

There was a group of guys who followed Jesus around and there were people who gathered when he spoke. The former didn't understand the mystery despite having an explanation and the latter didn't have it explained to them. Is that really a manifest separation? I think the real separation the author establishes is between the clueless disciples and those who actually understand the meaning of the mystery. I assume the former were intended to represent the author's contemporaries who claimed to be following the teachings of the disciples while the latter refers to the author and anyone who shared his beliefs.

I think the bigger deal the author makes is about the failure of the insiders to understand Jesus.

There is too much obvious contrivance in this story for me to pretend to identify what, if anything, reflects history.

I'm not convinced (though it makes sense in the context of this request being usually made by a family member) but, assuming replacement, I wonder about Daddy Joseph who is never mentioned by this author but is by others.

ynquirer

The Masoretic text of the BHS spots a dagesh inside the YOD in )YLWN, the dagesh being an indication that the YOD was a consonant. This is the reason why aialwn must be deemed an accurate transliteration. Most of the times the name appears in the Tanakh the YOD is so qualified. However, in a few instances the YOD appears without the dagesh (as in Judges 12:11), which is to be interpreted as if the writer thought the YOD was a matre lectionis; this would justify a transliteration like ailwn.

Therefore, there is no accretion of a vowel. Ajalon shows -aia-, like in Caiaphas, to be clear indication that the YOD in there is a consonant.

Continuing with Ajalon, in Judges 12:12 one can find the name twice, once as )YLWN, the YOD with dagesh, and a consonant, while a second time )LWN, that is, the YOD omitted.

spin

Congratulations. You've just demonstrated the case. The YOD can be seen in Hebrew both as a consonant and as a mater lectionis. Two different understandings of the structure in Hebrew, two different pronunciations in Greek. You've explained how one can have all the manifestations under consideration. Well done.


spin

Ben C Smith

Well, this is simply a quandary that bantering about on an internet discussion board is not going to resolve. You say that general knowledge of the kingdom of God is irrelevant to whether Joseph of Arimathea is being described as already knowing (of) Jesus, and I say that it is certainly relevant. He said, he said. Let the reader decide.

Sort of. The math can mean learning or discipleship and the ari is sometimes used as a short prefix for the more common aristo, meaning best. But then, it is tempting to identify Arimathea with Armathaim (LXX 1 Samuel 1.1), is it not?

Even if by name, what would positively indicate that Joseph knew his name from some past connection? Why not from the proceedings of the trial, from rumor, or from some other source?

I agree with all of this.

That last line is very insightful. It would provide yet another reason for Joseph to claim this particular body without necessarily having some specific prior connection to Jesus.

I am not seeing this at all. Sorry.

While I have conceded long ago that it is a possible reason, I fail to see why it is more obvious that Mark is connecting the kingdom phrase with asking for the body than that Mark is connecting the asking for the body phrase with Jesus having apparently died sooner than might be expected (or, as you mentioned above, with Jesus having no one willing to do the burial).

That is a good point. On the other hand, I can discern crystal clear reasons here for Matthew and John (I presume you meant John, not Luke, since Luke is very close to Mark here; earlier I think I said Matthew and Luke, but that was a mistake; I meant Matthew and John) wishing to take something ambiguous in Mark and drawing out something more concrete.

Yes, but not a very good Christian. I find myself arguing with the evangelists all the time. This frightens me only when they argue back.

If it is not unique to Jesus, then it does not have to be unique to Jesus in Mark 15.

Again, candidates for becoming actual followers. I do not disagree. I think that when Jesus called the scribe not far from the kingdom we are not too far afield in assuming that this scribe would make a good candidate for his own messianic movement. That is not in dispute.

Yes, I have. I connected the kingdom of God phrase to the not far from the kingdom phrase in Mark 12, which places Joseph in my second group (not in the first with actual followers, and not in the third with actual opponents). And I have connected the petition for the body of Jesus with Jesus having apparently died early. Mark formulates the first phrase in order to explain why this official might pay Jesus a courtesy that the other officials, the villains of the piece, might not. Mark formulates the second phrase because he has to show what happens to the body of Jesus, has to show that it was not deposited in a common criminal graveyard.

What is possible, but is not necessary in my view, is that Mark further connected the kingdom of God phrase with the petition for the body in any way that suggests a previous connection.

But I suspect you and I could chase our tails forever on this matter.

[QUOTE]They were given an explicit explanation of the mystery but they didn't understand it.[/QUTOE]

Agreed.

If even that many, but agreed.

An attempt by whom? By Mark? By Jesus? By both?

According to Mark, yes. The former were followers. The latter were not. The former were granted certain things that the latter were not.

Who in Mark actually understands the meaning of the mystery? On some readings, the woman who anoints him does. Anybody else?

Why do you assume this?

Historicity and nonhistoricity was not my point. I only meant that by this time the followers of Jesus had already fled; they were already cast in a bad light. Mark did not have to go out of his way with Joseph (whether real or fictional) to make the disciples look bad. What I am saying is that I doubt Mark invented or chose to transmit this particular pericope in order to make them look bad. Rather, surely his primary motive is to get Jesus into an identifiable tomb and out of a criminal graveyard.

Yet more fodder for the name game. Joseph the father, Joseph (Joses) the brother, and Joseph the best disciple. We may as well throw in Josephus and Joseph Smith, too.

Mark describes the women in 15.41 who followed Jesus in and from Galilee; they are, then, actual followers of Jesus. He also describes the women in 15.47 as looking on as Joseph buries Jesus. They seem quite separated from Joseph; there is no indication that Joseph even knows they are watching, and he disappears from the account after burying Jesus. What, in your opinion, does this say about the intended relationship of Joseph to the followers of Jesus?

Ben.

ynquirer

Thank you. Yet please recall that I never said that your interpretation is impossible, but unlikely instead. In reference to this, I’ve shown that a Greek transliteration as aia, like in Caiaphas, points at the YOD in QYP) being used as a consonant rather than a matre lectionis.

spin

Yet you haven't shown it to be unlikely.

You've shown one interpretation of the YOD in QYP) to be a consonant -- that is after all what is suggested by Caiaphas --, not that the YOD must be a consonant. This is also what you accepted with Ajalon. (And pointing out the dagesh is not very useful considering the lateness of the indication.)


spin

Amaleq13

They are the majority, I think.

I assume general knowledge of the kingdom and it does nothing to change my position. I consider that an operational definition of "irrelevant".

Why choose to describe Joseph in this way given the obvious import the phrase is given elsewhere in the story if he only had a general knowledge of the kingdom? Why would that be a relevant?

Why?

The connection deliberately chosen by the author in writing the sentence the way he did. Respected counsellor, seeker of the kingdom of God, unfearfully requesting the body of Jesus. Choosing to place those particular words in the same sentence connects them. What author does otherwise?

While we're on the subject of choices:

"Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable counsellor, who also himself was waiting for the reign of God, came, boldly entered in unto Pilate, and asked the body of Jesus."

Why the choice of boldly in your view? What did a pious, important member of the Sanhedrin have to fear in doing nothing but requesting that the Law be honored by allowing him to bury a fellow Jew?

What part of the text suggests any of those as his source?

What other reason would there be to request the body of a non-relative? Why would it be "bold" of him to do so for that reason?

The author first connects it to the "bold" entrance and then connects them both to the request by placing them in the same sentence. That is simply not a choice the author made with regard to the rapidity of Jesus' death.

We do not have, for example:

"Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable counsellor, knowing that a fellow Jew had died on the cross, came, boldly entered in unto Pilate, and asked the body of Jesus."

Yes, John, thanks. And I blame you for the error, too.

I agree that the implication is ambiguous and view it as yet another choice by the author.

It was not unique to Jesus in the real world. It is specific to Jesus in the story. Or, to put it another way, Jesus' specific understanding of that concept is the focus of the use of that phrase in the story. The other example of a "seeker" is being congratulated specifically for being close to Jesus' conception of the kingdom of God.

Your groups notwithstanding, if the author had depicted the man in 12 as asking for the body, I would hold the same position about him.

You connected the singularity of the request but not the request, itself, and not the "bold" nature of the request.

How does his seeking for the kingdom offer that explanation?

By Jesus in the story the author wrote.

The former literally followed him around while the latter might decide/feel called to do the same. Continuum.

Just the author and, presumably, his intended audience.

I'm afraid the explanation would be as long as it is irrelevant to the discussion. Briefly, I'm connecting Joe's Mark vs the Disciples with the idea (Solo's?) that Paul actively opposed those whose "gospel" involved veneration of the living Jesus.

Agreed.

I would guess the women didn't know him thought it is possible they knew who he was but were intimidated by his social position.

Ben C Smith

Hi, Doug. In the interests of time and space I will concentrate only on the new material.

Because he is asking Pilate, the Roman prefect, for the body. The Romans usually left the carcass up for a good long while as a warning to others. To ask to bring the carcass down would be asking for a change of protocol, an exception. These exceptions happened now and then (we later find Josephus making the same request on behalf of three acquaintances), but they were still exceptions.

Details in Byron McCane, The Shame of Jesus' Burial. *

Why do you suppose Mark chose to be ambiguous here?

I really do not think they are my groups. Mark himself pointedly distinguishes between group 1 and group 2 in chapter 4, and I do not think you doubt a distinction between group 2 and group 3.

I think this is another instance of Mark, if he really wanted to make Joseph a follower, shooting himself in the foot. Had Mark written himself a secret follower of Jesus (like John), or himself a disciple (like Matthew), we would not be having this pleasant conversation.

Ben.

* mod note:

"WHERE NO ONE HAD YET BEEN LAID" The Shame of Jesus' Burial, Byron R. McCane, in B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 431-452.

Amaleq13

That's unfortunate because I was looking forward to your explanation why the explicitly chosen connection of placement in the same sentence is less obvious that others spanning to more distant parts of the same scene or even out elsewhere in the story.

The context of the story doesn't make that explanation very credible, I'm afraid. This is a respected member of the group that just before, with the help of a willing crowd, convinced Pilate to execute a man he considered innocent. Now, he is asking this same man to grant this wrongly executed victim a respectful burial. It makes no sense to suggest Joseph would be afraid in such a circumstance unless it was fear that his actions would be interpreted as indicating support for Jesus. He was not afraid of Pilate but of his fellow Sanhedrin members and it was because he was well aware what the most obvious implication of his actions would be.

Just like me and the authors of Matthew and John but unlike you.

Insufficient data, captain.

Fiction: The author was concerned that depicting a Sanhedrin member as a secret disciple would be too incredible for his readers to believe. As you've pointed out, the primary purpose of the scene is to get the body in a tomb but without any disciple or family involvement. The non-family member had to be somebody with enough clout to be credible in his success. Given how they had just controlled Pilate earlier in the story, a Sanhedrin member is perfect. But why would somebody who just railroaded Jesus ask for his body? The hint of sympathy does the job just fine.

History: The author had ambiguous data with which to work. Unconfirmed rumors that a Sanhedrin member (I heard he was a secret follower) had obtained the body for burial.

The author doesn't need to make Joseph a follower. He only needs to introduce the implication as a way of explaining why a respected Sanhedrin member would claim the body of a man he had presumably just helped get falsely executed.