Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Laera · 11-01-2002, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
The idea that rich people live in "the heights" sounds like a modern notion from American cities, especially LA, where rich people live on the hills so they can avoid the air pollution of the city traffic. Was it the practice in 30 CE for rich people to live in the heights?

From all I know (which is one class in college), rich people did tend to live on the higher ground (easier to defend). When cities were built on hills, the closer to the center you were (the higher up you were), the more important you must have been. The poorest folks lived outside the city walls in the valleys or lowlands.

Don't quote me on that, though.

11-01-2002, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
The idea that rich people live in "the heights" sounds like a modern notion from American cities, especially LA, where rich people live on the hills so they can avoid the air pollution of the city traffic. Was it the practice in 30 CE for rich people to live in the heights?

"The heights" are inflated ego's and is more a result of achievement. The achievements are major qualities learned.

The imagery used in the Gospels were the shepherds that were out herding [their] sheep at night. These same shepherds became the apostles that saw Jesus through the puragation period and were later recalled into the upper room to be ascended with Christ into heaven.

Celsus · 11-02-2002, 01:25 PM

I've read somewhere about a sloppy connection to Josephus - i.e. Joseph Bar Matthew. Can't remember where though.

ghiangelo · 11-02-2002, 02:27 PM

i always thought that Joseph of Arimathaea was a lawyer, and was used as a legal witness.

ghi

Toto · 11-02-2002, 02:29 PM

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/burial.html#joseph" target="_blank">The rejection of Pascal's Wager</a>

Quote:

If he did not exist, the next question would be where Mark got his story (and the name) from. There is a very likely candidate for this. As the Jewish scholar, Hugh Schonfield, pointed out, the story of Joseph of Arimathea in the gospels resembles very closely an episode from Josephus' Autobiography. In it, Josephus relates his own experience upon seeing his friends on the cross:

Once more when I was sent by Titus Caesar...to a village called Tekoa to prospect whether it was a suitable camp, and, on my return, saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of my acquaintances among them, I was cut to the heart, and came and told Titus with tears what I have seen. He gave orders immediately that they should be taken down and receive the most careful treatment. Two of them died in the physician's hands, the third survived.

One can immediately see that the above passage closely parallels the Markan account. First there were three victims of crucifixion that played a role in Josephus' story just like in the gospels where Jesus was crucified together with two robbers. Just as Josephus went to the Roman commander to beg for his friends' lives, Joseph of Arimathea went to the Roman governor to asked for Jesus' body. And just as Jesus was resurrected where the other two died, in Josephus' story one of his three acquaintances survived.

The similarity in the names of the main protagonist is also considerable. In the same work, Josephus elucidated his distinguished ancestry. His grandfather, also named Joseph, begot Matthias his father in the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus (AD6). In the Greek text (the language Josephus wrote in) Joseph begot Matthias is rendered as Josepou Matthias. In Mark's gospel, Joseph of Arimathea is written in Greek as Joseph apo Arimathias, the similarity is curious. To quote Schonfield:

It is certainly curious that we have Josephus, himself a Josepou Matthias, begging the Roman commander for the bodies of three crucified friends, one of whom is brought back to life.

CX · 11-02-2002, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ghiangelo:
i always thought that Joseph of Arimathaea was a lawyer, and was used as a legal witness.

ghi

One is entitled to think whatever one likes, but in absence of any evidence such thoughts are of little merit. Perhaps you could elaborate. JofA is barely mentioned in the NT so I'm not sure how you arrive at such a conclusion.

ghiangelo · 11-02-2002, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX:


One is entitled to think whatever one likes, but in absence of any evidence such thoughts are of little merit. Perhaps you could elaborate. JofA is barely mentioned in the NT so I'm not sure how you arrive at such a conclusion.

good point, and i should have elaborated further. but first here is an intriguing description of Joseph of Arimathea by a FRANCIS E. GIGOT (Transcribed by Mike McLeod) with an explaination of the possible origin of the name, Arimathea -

Quote:

All that is known for certain concerning him is derived from the canonical Gospels. He was born at Arimathea -- hence his surname -- "a city of Judea" (Luke, xxiii, 51), which is very likely identical with Ramatha, the birthplace of the Prophet Samuel, although several scholars prefer to identify it with the town of Ramleh. He was a wealthy Israelite (Matt., xxvii, 57), "a good and a just man" (Luke, xxiii, 50), "who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God" (Mark, xv, 43). He is also called by St. Mark and by St. Luke a bouleutes, literally, "a senator", whereby is meant a member of the Sanhedrin or supreme council of the Jews. He was a disciple of Jesus, probably ever since Christ's first preaching in Judea (John, ii, 23), but he did not declare himself as such "for fear of the Jews" (John, xix, 38). On account of this secret allegiance to Jesus, he did not consent to His condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Luke, xxiii, 51), and was most likely absent from the meeting which sentenced Jesus to death (cf. Mark, xiv, 64).

The Crucifixion of the Master quickened Joseph's faith and love, and suggested to him that he should provide for Christ's burial before the Sabbath began. Unmindful therefore of all personal danger, a danger which was indeed considerable under the circumstances, he boldly requested from Pilate the Body of Jesus, and was successful in his request (Mark, xv, 43-45). Once in possession of this sacred treasure, he -- together with Nicodemus, whom his courage had likewise emboldened, and who brought abundant spices -- wrapped up Christ's Body in fine linen and grave bands, laid it in his own tomb, new and yet unused, and hewn out of a rock in a neighbouring garden, and withdrew after rolling a great stone to the opening of the sepulchre (Matt., xxvii, 59, 60; Mark, xv, 46; Luke, xxiii, 53; John, xix, 38-42). Thus was fulfilled Isaiah's prediction that the grave of the Messias would be with a rich man (Is., liii, 9).

also mentioned here is the association JofA had with the Sanhedron. the Sanhedron was a very powerful and influential aspect of the central hebrew faith. in effect it was a �supreme court� where the Talmud laws were discussed, argued and applied to the jewish community. the Sanhedron was an established institution of legal matters. it was appointed with wise men, or persons with extensive knowledge of the tamud traditions. another general way to describe Sanhedron members would be to liken them to �lawyers�, afterall they were practitioners of the Law. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedron and as such would have lawyered there. Joseph�s success in his appeal with Pilate to have the body of Jesus removed from the cross early may have been do to the fact he was associated with the Sanhedron and as such would be considered a mutual �Law� man (not to mention the potential for the use of bribery money as part of the deal). the odd part is that JofA is mentioned very slightly yet is one of the most significant characters in the crucifixion story. this is total conjecture on my part but it seems that the gospel writer introduced Joseph at the pivotal part of the story where it was so necessary to get Jesus off the cross and entombed within the kosher time for preparation of the dead. also when all others were gone and Jesus is alone upon the cross the one person who finally takes the body just happens to be a representative of the Sanhedron. this is kind of a subtle narrative acknowledgement of the significance of Jesus from one of the most powerful Jewish establishments. interestingly, throughout the gospel stories Jesus is shown to be a clever �interpreter� of the law, expressing a deep and wise understanding of the meaning and spirit of legal scripture. in actuality he seemed more suited for the role of a great sage in the Sanhedron than a Messianic king of the Jews.

ghi

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: ghiangelo ]

leonarde · 11-03-2002, 01:35 PM

I don't know how it was in 1st Century Palestine,
but in late 20th Century/early 21st Century Rio
de Janeiro the poor people live on the hills on
the outskirts of that city.....

Cheers!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-02-2002, 01:25 PM	#13
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	I've read somewhere about a sloppy connection to Josephus - i.e. Joseph Bar Matthew. Can't remember where though.

11-02-2002, 02:27 PM	#14
ghiangelo Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: vancouver, bc Posts: 30	i always thought that Joseph of Arimathaea was a lawyer, and was used as a legal witness. ghi

11-03-2002, 01:35 PM	#18
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	I don't know how it was in 1st Century Palestine, but in late 20th Century/early 21st Century Rio de Janeiro the poor people live on the hills on the outskirts of that city..... Cheers!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.