spin

The corpus is, as I've already said, small, so one can't always find all that one needs, but the toponym Ajalon, )YLWN, in Jos 10:12 is ailwn while in 2 Chr 11:10 it is aialwn, which shows that the accretion of such a vowel is certainly possible.

Let's have an example of a medial YOD, not a mater lectionis but a consonant, omitted from a Hebrew name in the same context, to make your claim a little tangible.


spin

Amaleq13

Why did the author choose to describe Joseph as "looking for the kingdom of God"?

It also isn't the same as asking for any other bodies. Why did the author choose to depict Joseph as specifically asking for Jesus?

Ben C Smith

To set him apart from the Sanhedrin who railroaded Jesus, I imagine.

The very fact that Joseph is looking for the kingdom of God makes it sound to me as if he belongs to the same basic category as the gentleman in Mark 12.34, who was not far from the kingdom of God (but certainly not a disciple of Jesus in any meaningful sense).

I agree. It offers no data either way. See below.

If Mark wishes to display Joseph as a good disciple, then presumably he asked for the body of Jesus as a discipular gesture. If Mark wishes to display Joseph as a pious Jew, then presumably he asked for the body of Jesus either (A) because Jesus was all that mattered to Mark or (B) because Jesus was the only crucified man that was already dead at this time (see Mark 15.44, in which Pilate wonders if Jesus is dead already; the fact that Pilate has to ask implies that death was not necessarily expected so soon).

Since either option (good disciple or pious Jew) has a good explanation in this verse, this verse cannot be used to prove either option.

I do not have to prove that Mark saw Joseph as only a pious Jew; it is enough for my purposes here to prove that Mark did not paint him specifically as a disciple.

Ben.

Amaleq13

That's all? Given every prior use of the phrase by the author, I think you are stopping well short of what he intended to convey. We are talking about the fundamental teaching of Jesus here, Ben. And we are told this guy was interested in that very concept and this is clearly connected to his specific request for the body of Jesus.

YES!!! Why do you ignore the clearly favorable reaction of Jesus to this man? He is quite obviously being depicted as a potential "disciple" and there is no reason to avoid reaching the same conclusion with regard to Joseph-the-body-snatcher.

It certainly suggests what the author considered to be most relevant to his story.

Given the use of the fundamentally important phrase, there can be no question that the author intended to depict Joseph as a potential follower if not already secret or "closeted" one.

Then the phrase used was inappropriate since it clearly conveys more than that. The author would only need to indicate Joseph was merely a pious Jew.

It was all that mattered for his story.

No, the second option requires that we ignore the obvious implication of the phrase tje author deliberately chose to describe Joseph.

He clearly depicts him as a potential follower if not a "closeted" one.

Ben C Smith

Why do you beat your wife?

Your repeated use the term potential feels a little loose. I would think that a great many Jews could be classified as potential followers in Mark, including the fellow in chapter 12, the crowds at the triumphal entry in chapter 11, Bartimaeus, Jairus, and Joseph of Arimathea.

If you are using that term to divide nonfollowers who are genuinely interested in the same things as the Marcan Jesus from nonfollowers who stand squarely against the Marcan Jesus, then of course I agree with you. I already opined that the phrase was being used to make that sort of distinction.

You appear to agree that to be seeking the kingdom of God or to be not far from the kingdom of God is not the same as to be a disciple.

I think Joe Wallack grouped Joseph in with the disciples (cleanly, without remainder) as a way of making the connection stronger than it really is. He placed Joseph on precisely the same list as Simon Peter and James of Zebedee. And that is what I am objecting to.

The phrase seeking the kingdom of God is inappropriate for a pious Jew?

What obvious implication does it ignore? Why can Joseph not be a pious Jew (and therefore interested in keeping the land pure) who is looking for the kingdom of God (and therefore of the class of outsider that might well be sympathetic to Jesus and his movement)?

When I wrote that Mark did not paint Joseph specifically as a follower, you wrote:

The first half of which I agree with, granted all necessary qualifiers for that loose term potential. The second half, I believe, lacks demonstration in Mark, though I admit it is quite abundant in some of the other gospels.

Let me ask you this: Granted that at any given time a potential follower may actually become an actual follower, do you think that with the phrase seeking the kingdom of God Mark intends us to group Joseph already with those to whom the mystery of the kingdom of God (Mark 4.11) has been given?

I see three different kinds of people in Mark. First, there are the actual followers of Jesus; Joseph is clearly not one of those. Second, there are the honest seekers, to which belong Joseph, Bartimaeus, the man in chapter 12, and others. Third, there are the outright enemies of Jesus; Joseph is clearly not one of those.

Only if we reduce these three classes to two classes and artificially force members of the second class into the first class will Joseph make the same list as Simon Peter.

Ben.

Amaleq13

She sucks at Scrabble so I am undefeated.

It seems to fit the description offered. We are being told that this man was someone with interest in the preaching of Jesus and, at the very least, sympathy for him as a result. Is "Jesus sympathizer" tight enough for you?

Yep.

Obviously. I appear to disagree that to be described by Mark's author as seeking the kingdom or not far from the kingdom of God is not the same as being a pious Jew. Seeking the kingdom goes beyond following the Law.

[QUTOE]The phrase seeking the kingdom of God is inappropriate for a pious Jew?[/QUOTE]

If that is all that was intended by the author, yes, because he has clearly connected that phrase with more than being a pious Jew.

Joseph is clearly more than just a pious Jew because the author chose to identify him as looking for exactly what Jesus preached. There can be no question that his request for the body was motivated by more than just observance of Jewish Law.

Within the context of the logic of the story, it seems to me to be a reasonable possibility though I agree it is far from explicitly stated. The use of the crucial phrase as a descriptor suggests that he knew Jesus preached the kingdom of God and liked what he heard.

If being given the mystery means more than just hearing Jesus preach (eg private instruction, initiation), I would think "seeking" argues against it.

I don't see the grouping as artificial. I see it as a continuum of those favorable to Jesus and/or his preaching extending from the inner circle of disciples out to anyone in the crowd who liked what they heard.

Ben C Smith

It looks to me as if you are cleanly equating these two statements, whereas I at least leave open the possibility that they are different things. To be interested in the economic policies of Ronald Reagan implies that one knows who Reagan is and knows something about economic policy as he himself actually formulated it. But to look for what Ronald Reagan advanced as economic policy does not imply that much; it can even be a brand new discovery (at last, you have exactly what I have been looking for all along).

Mark 1.15 presents the kingdom of God as an entity of which those who heard the gospel would already be aware. I do not think Mark expects the Jewish audience of Jesus to say: What time? What kingdom? What on earth are you talking about?

The kingdom of God is supposed to be a concept with which the audience is already somewhat familiar, as indeed it should be, since the eschatological reign of God is discussed in most of the prophets, especially Daniel. (And, indeed, it is very tempting to tie the announcement of the time of the kingdom being fulfilled back to the Danielic prophecy of the 70 weeks, but no need to press that right now.)

In other words, to be looking for the kingdom of God is not necessarily to have favorably heard the very words of Jesus himself on the subject (it could, for instance, be a distinguishing mark between Joseph and the Sadducees, who IIUC were not looking for the kingdom of God as the prophets prophesied it; their eschatological understanding was different than the Jewish groups who were looking for the consolation of Israel or the redemption of Jerusalem; see below).

I leave open the possibility that Mark intends readers to understand that Joseph of Arimathea at least knew who Jesus was, but I am not sure even that much is provable from the words seeking the kingdom. Luke 2.25 has a similar kind of phrase concerning Simeon; he was looking for the consolation of Israel, which most certainly does not mean that he knew all along who Jesus was (who, after all, had only just been born), though it is all but certain that, for Luke at least, Jesus was the consolation of Israel. Luke 2.38 mentions all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem; again, they do not yet know who Jesus is, though again it is certain that Luke thinks Jesus was the redemption of Jerusalem (see Luke 1.68).

Mark places a clear divide between insiders to whom the mystery is granted and outsiders who hear it all in parables. Mark 4.11 does not sound like a continuum. It sounds like a hard line of some kind.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I am only following the author who clearly (although apparently not to you) makes that connection in his description of Joseph. He was looking for the kingdom of God and specifically asked for the body of Jesus so that it might be appropriately handled. That connection is clearly intentional on the part of the author.

Even when the author has clearly connected Josephus' search and his request for the body of Jesus? I strongly disagree.

I do agree that Joe's characterization of him as a disciple exceeds the text but I think your interpretation goes too far in the opposite direction. You can't just ignore the author's clearly conscious decision in his choice of descriptor. It isn't random. It has meaning and significance.

I agree but, as I've already explained, that isn't all we are told.

No, that follows from the addition of being depicted as specifically asking for the body of Jesus. Had the author chosen to describe Joseph as looking for the kingdom and asking for the bodies, we would not be having this discussion.

And it would be a totally different situation, albeit genuinely analogous to Mark, if the author of Luke had placed those exact phrases in the mouth of Jesus as he preached.

It was a "hard line" that even the disciples couldn't cross even with one-to-one tutoring from Jesus!!! That chapter ends with them wondering who Jesus is for Christ's sake!! (pun intended) I have to go with Joe on this one and conclude the entire Revelation of the Mystery scene is just another effort by the author to establish that the disciples really didn't understand Jesus.

Ben C Smith

Yes, I quite agree with you there. But where we apparently disagree is on the significance of that connection.

In your view, it seems, the only explanation for this connection is that Joseph is interested in Jesus himself, that Joseph is already aware of his preaching on the kingdom of God.

In my view, that is certainly possible. However, Mark has just called Joseph a prominent member of the council, apparently the same council that got Jesus killed. Might the reference to looking for the kingdom of God be there to explain why this particular member of the council would be interested in this act of piety? The insult hidden behind the reference might well be that the other members of the council would gladly side with the Roman way of doing things, leaving the body out much longer.

Okay.

You may be right.

Every time we explain ourselves in English on this point, we have to add a word like only or specifically to make it come across right. Mark lacks such a word. I am not certain he intended to make it sound like Joseph asked only, specifically, pointedly, or even necessarily by name.

I am not certain that asking for the body (singular) of Jesus, without specifier, is enough to bear the burden of Joseph being a secret admirer of Jesus. If Jesus was the only one who had died by this time, then his body would be the only one available for the taking.

I disagree there. I think Mark 1.15 implies that the concept of the kingdom of God was out there already, and that the real innovation was in that Jesus was claiming (as would the rebels some forty years later) that the time had finally arrived. His message was not supposed to be our introduction to the topic; rather, he was supposed to be its very last preacher.

Therefore, I dispute that the statement that Joseph was looking for the kingdom has to mean that he has heard (of) Jesus at all, though I readily concede that this quality about him could make him sympathetic to Jesus once they crossed paths.

Oh, I disagree. They were, in fact, given the mystery of the kingdom, according to Mark 4.11, while the crowds were, in fact, kept outside.

That is correct. They squandered their insider status.

Except for that word just, I agree with this also. I just happen to think that it has nothing to do with Joseph of Arimathea.

For what it may be worth, I think that Joseph (whether historical or fictional) is yet another element in the apology for the cross. It is Joseph who (whether intentionally or out of convenience) keeps Jesus out of a common grave for criminals, the most common (and most dishonorable) fate for crucified men.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Given the prior use of the phrase by the author, it makes no sense to limit one's interpretation of this use. It is a clear and specific connection between Jesus and Joseph.

The word accurately describes what the author chose to write. As I've already indicated, there is no need to assume that Joseph didn't ask for anyone else in order to recognize that the author chose to describe him as specifically asking for Jesus' body.

Then you must assume he was a poor writer unable to properly choose the words to express himself and I consider that an unreasonable assumption.

Authors choose their words for a reason, Ben.

Alone, perhaps not. But it isn't alone. It is accompanied by a very specific phrase that clearly connects to the preaching of Jesus. Taken together, it seems obvious to me that this is precisely what the author intended to convey.

I think we are talking past one another. I was pointing out that your example from Luke was not analogous because the phrase in question had no established specific connection to Jesus prior in the story.

This isn't about Jesus coming up with a new concept. It is about the author clearly connecting Jesus to preaching the kingdom and later using that exact same phrase to describe the man who asked for Jesus' body.

Again, you are taking only one part of the description when I have repeatedly stated that it is the combination of the two phrases that establishes a specific connection to Jesus. He was interested in the same concepts Jesus preached and asked for Jesus' body so that it could be handled appropriately. Taken together as a deliberate choice on the part of the author, it seems obvious to me that he intended us to understand that the sympathy was already there.

You don't have to understand the mystery to be considered "over the line"? Sorry, I don't buy that bit of sophistry. You can't be considered different from other followers by virtue of special instructions you don't understand.

Right and that means they really can't be considered as crossing any sort of substantial "line" between them and the rest. They simply had the opportunity.

The disciples failed to understand the mystery and failed to care for the disposition of the body of Jesus. Joseph is another example of the author making them look bad.