4983Two burial stories
- Sep 3, 2004James McGrath wrote:
<My own difficulty with the hypothesis Joseph Codsi has proposed is that
I consider the Markan form of the account of Jesus' burial quite
plausible as the starting point for subsequent development in the Gospel
This is correct, but only in relation to what pertains to the second
Mark's account seems to be the most "primitive" one. Joseph of Arimathea
is identified as "a respected member of the council, who was also
himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God." (Mark 15:43)
Matthew makes of Joseph a rich man who was also a disciple of Jesus
(27:57). There is here a slight attempt to make the story look more
credible. As member of the council, Joseph would have sent Jesus to his
death. He would have been unfit to worry about the burial of Jesus.
Luke introduces Joseph in this fashion: "Now there was a good and
righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, had not
agreed to their plan and action." (23:50-51)
John says of Joseph that he was a disciple of Jesus, a secret one
however because of his fear of the Jews. (19:38)
In all accounts, Joseph of Arimathea looks like a "Deus ex machina", who
appears out of nowhere in order to solve a problem. The original story
made him a member of the council so as to explain the fact that he was
able to obtain the necessary permission to bury Jesus. He was neither a
disciple nor a member of the family. On the contrary, he was a member of
the council! Clearly he had no business taking the initiative of
petitioning for the body of Jesus.
Matthew, Luke and John had no other tradition to follow. They tried to
camouflage the oddity of the story as best they could.
In comparison, the first burial story is much more credible.
Am I going too fast to the conclusion I have in mind?
P.O. Box 116-2088
Telephone (961) 1 423 145
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>