k_smith123

While many of the parallels between Christ and other mythological figures have been widely discussed by those who argue that Christ is also a myth, there is a remarkable parallel between the Biblical accounts of Joseph of Arimathea and an incident described by Josephus in his autobiography that seems to be potentially far more important in regards to establishing the non-historicity of Christ.

The author of the Gospel of John provides this account of the actions of Joseph of Arimathea:

John 20:38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away.
39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.
40 Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid.
42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

(All Biblical quotes are NIV unless otherwise indicated.)

And the author of the Gospel of Matthew presents a slightly different version:

Matt. 27:57 As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.
58 Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him.
59 Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away.

One would expect that the survival of a crucified man to be an extremely rare occurrence, so it seems incredible that we have an account of a remarkably similar event that supposedly occurred in 70 CE apparently after the fall of Jerusalem. The Jewish historian Josephus (a.k.a. Joseph bar Matthias) reports the following incident in his autobiography:

And when I (Josephus) was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I 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. (Life of Josephus, Paragraph 75.)

This short excerpt contains a surprising number (in regards to probability) of parallels to the Gospel accounts of Christ's crucifixion—a man named "Joseph", the plea to a Roman leader, the number of victims (Christ was crucified with two robbers), and the survival of one. Could this be an incredible coincidence or some kind of message? The key problem with this association however is that the event Josephus describes seems to have occurred almost forty years after Christ's supposed crucifixion. But if allegory is involved, can elements that provide a literal time frame be trusted? It is clear that even a literal understanding of the Gospel accounts, leads to confusion regarding the dates of Christ's birth and death. If the Gospel of Matthew is accepted as true, Christ had to have been born before King Herod's death in 4 BCE, but if the Gospel of Luke is to be believed then Christ was born about 6 CE during the "census". [Did it really take “thirty” men to hang the prophet Jeremiah in his potter’s field (Jeremiah 38:10) or is the number “thirty” also a metaphor?] If these elements that provide clues as to the dating of events are in fact metaphors, then literal time becomes irrelevant.

(I am by no means the first to make this connection. Compare this 18th Century biography of Joseph of Arimathea here with the autobiography of Josephus here.)

If this apparent link between Josephus and Joseph of Arimathea is truly intentional, then the question becomes—Why? What could a historian have to do with the burial of Christ? If one accepts the Gospels as allegory, the answer seems remarkably simple. In his account of the Jewish revolt of 66 CE, Josephus makes no mention of Christian involvement and this apparent failure of Christians to be involved is truly remarkable given the fact that they reportedly had been singled out for persecution only two years earlier due to their rumored involvement in the burning of Rome. Even if the Christians were not involved in the burning of Rome, one would expect their desire for retribution would get the better of them and they would quickly take up the swords that Christ himself had instructed them to buy (see Luke 22:36). But if Joseph of Arimathea was really intended to represent Josephus, then it is logical to assume that Josephus was really a "disciple of Jesus", and this then provides a motive for Josephus to hide Christian involvement in the Jewish revolt. Once this idea is accepted it becomes clear that the "empty tomb" that Christ was laid in was actually the "history" penned by Josephus.

For further evidence of a connection between Josephus and Joseph of Arimathea we can turn to the writings of Plato. Despite Plato's generally secular treatment of various issues, his ideas are seen as having played a crucial role in the development of Christian theology and this admitted link seems to place a stamp of approval on his work by the Church. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable to extend some of Plato's more obscure ideas into Christianity in order to see where they may lead. One idea that has been given very little attention by the literal world is Plato's concept of "correctness". In Cratylus Plato argued that in order for a name to be correct it had to in some way reflect the nature of its owner, but because of the seemingly trivial nature of this idea many scholars dismiss Cratylus as some sort of satire. Near the beginning of Cratylus Plato had the character Hermogenes introduce the issue of correctness by explaining:

HERMOGENES: I should explain to you, Socrates, that our friend Cratylus has been arguing about names; he says that they are natural and not conventional; not a portion of the human voice which men agree to use; but that there is a truth or correctness in them, which is the same for Hellenes as for barbarians. Whereupon I ask him, whether his own name of Cratylus is a true name or not, and he answers 'Yes.' And Socrates? 'Yes.' Then every man's name, as I tell him, is that which he is called. To this he replies--'If all the world were to call you Hermogenes, that would not be your name.' And when I am anxious to have a further explanation he is ironical and mysterious, and seems to imply that he has a notion of his own about the matter, if he would only tell, and could entirely convince me, if he chose to be intelligible.

As the discussion continues Socrates provides further insights into the issue when he remarks:

"…a king will often be the son of a king, the good son or the noble son of a good or noble sire; and similarly the offspring of every kind, in the regular course of nature, is like the parent, and therefore has the same name. Yet the syllables may be disguised until they appear different to the ignorant person, and he may not recognize them, although they are the same, just as any one of us would not recognize the same drugs under different disguises of colour and smell, although to the physician, who regards the power of them, they are the same, and he is not put out by the addition; and in like manner the etymologist is not put out by the addition or transposition or subtraction of a letter or two, or indeed by the change of all the letters, for this need not interfere with the meaning. As was just now said, the names of Hector and Astyanax have only one letter alike, which is tau, and yet they have the same meaning. And how little in common with the letters of their names has Archepolis (ruler of the city)--and yet the meaning is the same. And there are many other names which just mean 'king.' Again, there are several names for a general, as, for example, Agis (leader) and Polemarchus (chief in war) and Eupolemus (good warrior); and others which denote a physician, as Iatrocles (famous healer) and Acesimbrotus (curer of mortals); and there are many others which might be cited, differing in their syllables and letters, but having the same meaning." (Italics added)

In other words Plato (through Socrates) is suggesting that names can be disguised by altering letters and syllables (so that a name such as “Iscariot” can be understood as “sicarii”), or through the employment of words that have similar meanings but entirely different spellings. [This system means it is possible for a single real world idea to have dozens or even hundreds of metaphors, which is why it is often difficult to recognize parallels, or to find writers of allegory in full literal agreement in regards to a particular event. This also makes it easy for Christian apologists (or Apollogists) to apparently disprove any correct interpretation by showing seemingly correct alternatives, which is how Philo and Plato's "rhapsode" Ion (or John) operated. This form of interpretation that fails to expose the hidden layer of meaning is metaphorically described as “walking on water”.] Since "Joseph of Arimathea" is clearly similar to Josephus' original name "Joseph bar Matthias", we have yet another strong indication that a relationship exists.

The determination that a "tomb" represents a "history" can also be supported a number of ways. First of all it seems logical to associate history with tombs since so many ancient tombs included the history of their occupants on their walls. Secondly, the term "history" is derived from the Greek word "historeo", which means "to inquire". In Hebrew "to inquire" can be expressed as "sha'al" which also happens to provide the basis for the Hebrew word "she'owl" which means "place of the dead", and thus Plato's correctness works yet again. Finally, the association of tombs with history helps to explain why the Old Testament "secretary" Shebna was singled out for criticism for the seemingly innocent act of building his own tomb. The prophet Isaiah even remarked "He (the LORD) will roll you (Shebna) up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country." (Isa. 22:18) This clearly provides the image of Shebna being wadded up like a piece of parchment and one might suspect that this was an effort to clarify the real nature of Shebna's tomb.

It is also worth examining Josephus’ Thecoa crucifixion account in order to see if it too could hold some hidden meaning, which might explain why the Gospel authors would use it in such a blatant manner. (Other parallels are more carefully hidden by a greater use of alternate metaphors such as using a house with a hole in the roof to represent a hippodrome.) Correctness allows an easy association between Josephus’ Thecoa and the Old Testament the town of Tekoa. Tekoa is mentioned only thirteen times in the Old Testament and this is relevant because it indicates that the chances of finding a reference to Tekoa that accidentally parallels Josephus' account is relatively small. Of these thirteen occurrences, three of them are found in 2 Samuel 14 which tells the story of how David's commander Joab (Jehovah fathered) had a woman from Tekoa approach King David and convince him to spare the life of his rebellious son Absalom (father of peace) by pretending that she was pleading for her own son's life. This seems to provide a clear parallel to Josephus' Thekoa account and its seems to imply that the man whom Josephus claimed to have saved was not whom he appeared to be, but instead was the "son of David". [David’s name is derived from a Hebrew word for “love” (dowd), while his tribe—“Judah”—can be linked to the Hebrew word for “knowledge” (yada’), which seems to indicate that David represents “love of knowledge” or “philosophy”, while his predecessor Saul is again associated with “inquiry” (sha’al), thus the literal difference in nationality between David and Titus is unimportant, since David appears to have been no more than another metaphor. And if Judah does represent "knowledge", then so would Judas.]

If Josephus’ history did serve as the basis for the Gospel accounts then it might also be reasonable to suspect that Joseph the “carpenter” and husband of Mary was yet another representation of Josephus. (As for Christ’s “mother” she can be associated with the Hebrew word “merea’” which means “friend” and this idea can be represented in Greek as “philos”.) Is it a coincidence that in Hebrew the word for “carpenter”— charash – can also mean “silence”? This idea goes well with the names assigned to Josephus’ “silent” contemporaries Suetonius Tranquilus (tranquil) and Cornelius Tacitus (tacit). (Josephus’ admitted close relationship with the Roman emperor Vespasian could have provided the influence necessary to silence those that might otherwise have exposed Christian involvement in the revolt.) The fact that Christianity clearly existed before Josephus wrote his history correlates to Joseph’s lack of involvement in the fathering of Jesus. Correctness then links Joseph the pretended “father” (G. pater) with the disciple Peter. This connection then helps to explain Peter’s “denials”. The connection between Josephus and Peter is further demonstrated by the similarity between the name “Josephus” and the name “Cephas”. (The “Peter”, that Paul referred to in his writings most likely would be related to the “stones” scattered throughout the Old Testament, which explains Paul's silence in regards to most of the events depicted in the Gospels.)

With the numerous unanswered questions relating to the origins of Christianity, is it reasonable to leave any avenue unexplored regardless how incredible it may seem? With the above approach the numerous forgeries linked to the early Church can be understood as efforts to apply “correctness” to writings. Allegoric interpretation can also be used to explain the “traditions” which seemed to have sprung up from nowhere (i.e. the “Veronica” or “true image” of Christ is a “veil”). The supposed inerrancy of the Bible also makes sense when allegoric interpretation demonstrates that two seemingly different versions of the same event are found to be metaphorically consistent. And this is still only the tip of the iceberg. It seems that with this approach the real “Holy Grail” is within our grasp—we have only to dig a little deeper. At the very least, we have here a potential plot line that makes The Da Vinci Code look lame by comparison.

For those interested in further exploring this Labyrinth, here are some more clues to follow:

(Josephus Antiquities, Book12, chapter 4, para. 10)
"AREUS, KING OF THE LACEDEMONIANS, TO ONIAS, SENDETH GREETING.
We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the Jews and the Lacedemonians are of one stock, and are derived from the kindred of Abraham. It is but just therefore that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concerns as you please. We will also do the same thing, and esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demoteles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is four-square; and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws."

Socrates in Plato's THEAETETUS:
"In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples."

Mark 3:11 Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God." 12 But he gave them strict orders not to tell who he was.

(CRATYLUS by Plato Translated by Benjamin Jowett)
"…therefore I (Socrates) have the most entire conviction that he (Hesiod) called them demons, because they were daemones (knowing or wise), and in our older Attic dialect the word itself occurs. Now he and other poets say truly, that when a good man dies he has honour and a mighty portion among the dead, and becomes a demon; which is a name given to him signifying wisdom. And I say too, that every wise man who happens to be a good man is more than human (daimonion) both in life and death, and is rightly called a demon."

(GORGIAS by Plato)
"…I (Callicles) feel towards philosophers as I do towards those who lisp and imitate children. For I love to see a little child, who is not of an age to speak plainly, lisping at his play; there is an appearance of grace and freedom in his utterance, which is natural to his childish years. But when I hear some small creature carefully articulating its words, I am offended; the sound is disagreeable, and has to my ears the twang of slavery."

(Paulos is Latin for "small".)

Gen. 40:21 He restored the chief cupbearer to his position, so that he once again put the cup into Pharaoh's hand, 22 but he hanged the chief baker, just as Joseph had said to them in his interpretation. 23 The chief cupbearer, however, did not remember Joseph; he forgot him.

1 Cor. 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

1 Cor. 3:1 Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly--mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.

(Philo, CHERUBIM 48-49)
48 Take these things into your own hearts [psychés] as being sacred mysteries, you initiates who ears have been purified; and do not divulge them to any of the uninitiated. Rather, like stewards, keep the treasure with yourselves, not stored in with silver and gold -- corruptible substances -- but where there is the finest possession: acquaintance with the Cause and Virtue and, thirdly, the offspring of both. 49 Now I myself was initiated by Moses into the great mysteries. Nevertheless, when I see the prophet Jeremiah and recognize that he is not only a fellow-initiate but a fit religious instructor [hierophantes], I do not hesitate to go along with him. ---

(Alexander By Plutarch Translated by John Dryden)
It would appear that Alexander (the Great) received from him (Aristotle) not only his doctrines of Morals and of Politics, but also something of those more abstruse and profound theories which these philosophers, by the very names they gave them, professed to reserve for oral communication to the initiated, and did not allow many to become acquainted with. For when he was in Asia, and heard Aristotle had published some treatises of that kind, he wrote to him, using very plain language to him in behalf of philosophy, the following letter. "Alexander to Aristotle, greeting. You have not done well to publish your books of oral doctrine; for what is there now that we excel others in, if those things which we have been particularly instructed in be laid open to all? For my part, I assure you, I had rather excel others in the knowledge of what is excellent, than in the extent of my power and dominion. Farewell." And Aristotle, soothing this passion for pre-eminence, speaks, in his excuse for himself, of these doctrines as in fact both published and not published: as indeed, to say the truth, his books on metaphysics are written in a style which makes them useless for ordinary teaching, and instructive only, in the way of memoranda, for those who have been already conversant in that sort of learning.

(Josephus—Wars, Book 5, Chapter 13 para. 3)
"In the mean time, Josephus, as he was going round the city (Jerusalem), had his head wounded by a stone that was thrown at him; upon which he fell down as giddy. Upon which fall of his the Jews made a sally, and he had been hurried away into the city, if Caesar had not sent men to protect him immediately; and as these men were fighting, Josephus was taken up, though he heard little of what was done. So the seditious supposed they had now slain that man whom they were the most desirous of killing, and made thereupon a great noise, in way of rejoicing. This accident was told in the city, and the multitude that remained became very disconsolate at the news, as being persuaded that he was really dead, on whose account alone they could venture to desert to the Romans. But when Josephus's mother heard in prison that her son was dead, she said to those that watched about her, That she had always been of opinion, since the siege of Jotapata, [that he would be slain,] and she should never enjoy him alive any more. She also made great lamentation privately to the maid-servants that were about her, and said, That this was all the advantage she had of bringing so extraordinary a person as this son into the world; that she should not be able even to bury that son of hers, by whom she expected to have been buried herself. However, this false report did not put his mother to pain, nor afford merriment to the robbers, long; for Josephus soon recovered of his wound, and came out, and cried out aloud, That it would not be long ere they should be punished for this wound they had given him. He also made a fresh exhortation to the people to come out upon the security that would be given them. This sight of Josephus encouraged the people greatly, and brought a great consternation upon the seditious."

Rev. 13:3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. 4 Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him?"

Strong's Concordance:
2776. kephale, kef-al-ay'; prob. from the prim. kapto (in the sense of seizing); the head (as the part most readily taken hold of), lit. or fig.:--head.
2786. Kephas, kay-fas'; of Chad. or. [comp. H3710]; the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:--Cephas.

8034. shem, shame; a prim. word [perh. rather from H7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; comp. H8064]; an appelation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by impl. honor, authority, character:-- + base, [in-] fame [-ous], name (-d), renown, report.
8081. shemen, sheh'-men; from H8080; grease, espec. liquid (as from the olive, often perfumed); fig. richness:--anointing, X fat (things), X fruitful, oil ([-ed]), ointment, olive, + pine.
8095. Shim'own, shim-one'; from H8085; hearing; Shimon, one of Jacob's sons, also the tribe desc. from him:--Simeon.
4613. Simon, see'-mone; of Heb. or. [H8095]; Simon (i.e. Shimon), the name of nine Isr.:--Simon. Comp. G4826.

583. apographo, ap-og-raf'-o; from G575 and G1125; to write off (a copy or list), i.e. enroll:--tax, write.
614. apokruphos, ap-ok'-roo-fos; from G613; secret; by impl. treasured:--hid, kept secret.

5416. Nathan, naw-thawn'; from H5414; given; Nathan, the name of five Isr.:--Nathan.
860. 'athown, aw-thone'; prob. from the same as H386 (in the sense of patience); a female ass (from its docility):--(she) ass.
116. Athenai, ath-ay'-nahee; plur. of Athene (the goddess of wisdom, who was reputed to have founded the city); Athenoe, the capital of Greece:--Athens.

601. apokalupto, ap-ok-al-oop'-to; from G575 and G2572; to take off the cover, i.e. disclose:--reveal.
602. apokalupsis, ap-ok-al'-oop-sis; from G601; disclosure:--appearing, coming, lighten, manifestation, be revealed, revelation.

Zec. 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Some other key metaphors:

Water=writings (type of water identifies type of writings)
Earth=knowledge
Fire=allegoric interpretation
Air=cover (often based on truth)

Eyes=source material (i.e. the source of “water” in the form of “tears”)
Ears=cover
Hands=knowledge
Feet=hidden knowledge
Kings=allegory derived from hidden knowledge
Birds=cover
Life=cover
Death=absence of cover
Good=providing cover
Evil=removing cover
Male=knowledge (as long as “men” are “clothed” and have the “breath of life” they are considered covered.)
Red=knowledge
Blood=knowledge
White=cover
Silver=history (used for cover)
Gold=philosophy (knowledge that helps in allegoric interpretations such as when metaphors are defined in relation to other metaphors.)
Female=cover (i.e. giver of life)
Vine=history
Grafting=transplanting history (or stories) from one era to serve as cover for another.

Charles Wilson

Joe Atwill's _Caesar's Messiah_ provides just about all of the parallels between Josephus and Jesus as one person can stand.
Good book. Highly recommended.

For the "Way Out There Past Pluto" Society, you can look at work I'm beginning to post on this site. Since I believe that the Jesus stories are centered around the Temple Slaughter during Passover in 4 BCE, the crucifixion motif is the first story. Joe of A takes the body - the remains of the Plan to re-establish Priestly Rule - into exile in Galilee and returns to try again with a pregnant Mary in ~ 8 - 12 CE.

Great question.
Charles

fromdownunder

Did Arimathea even exist? I understand (I could be wrong, I often am) that there is no reference to it in the OT, Torah, Talmud or anywhere else except the Gospels.

Norm

Chuckling Atheist

These might help you out:

Joseph of Arimathea
Page about the burial

fromdownunder

Thanks. That pretty much confirms what I understood the situation to be.

Norm

Chuckling Atheist

You're welcome.

sorompio

I have a dim remembrance of having read something about the name "Arimatea", like it is a pun. Like Joseph "Afterdeath", but I just don't remember where I read it and the language of the translation... :huh: Does it ring a bell to you?

Amaleq13

It has been suggested that it is a pun on "best disciple" (aristos mathetes).

sorompio

Yes, Amaleq, I saw it, thank you, :notworthy: I'm familiar with Greek, but Greek is not the problem, it was some Middle East language. I've been trying hard to remember and check some nearly recent readings, but still cannot get it. :huh: