Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Burial story at close

Expand Messages
  • Frides Laméris
    Hi Joseph (and others) ... From: Joseph Codsi To: Johannine_literature johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 10,
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 11, 2004
      Hi Joseph (and others)

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Joseph Codsi <joseph5@...>
      To: Johannine_literature johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 8:48 PM
      Subject: [John_Lit] Two burial stories

      Joseph (to Bill):
      "GJohn disagrees with GMark on another important
      point. For him the burial of Jesus was not temporary but final. Jesus
      was embalmed before being put in the tomb and there was no need for the
      women to go back, retrieve the body and embalm it before burying it
      again. This correction is important. If the women go back to the tomb
      after the Sabbath, it must have been to mourn Jesus, not to anoint his
      body. In other words, GJohn corrects a big mistake found in GMark. The
      women could not have wanted to anoint the body of Jesus. GJohn is not
      afraid of contradicting GMark. He even goes overboard to the point of
      suppressing a collective action by the women. For him, Mary of Magdala
      acted alone on the first day of the week."'
      End quote


      The straight away emballment of Jesus at the spot (as in John 19.39) is
      certainly historically right. Robinson (Priority of John, 282) notes however
      that what the women do in Mk 16.1 is also necessary.
      When at nightfall after the shabbat has ended, the women buy 'aroomata',
      this is, according to Robinson in accordance with the prescription of the
      Mishna (Shab. 23.4). It is a kind of 'anointing' with oils, for which there
      may have been no time on friday (on the time factor, please also see below).

      So, Mark has left something out and John has left something out.
      We may be happy therefore to have both accounts available to us to
      satisfy our thirst for possible historical details around the burial.

      Joseph to Bill:
      I don't know what to say about the Nicodemus of chapter 3.
      But his presence at the burial scene is more a pious fiction than
      an historical fact. It seems to me that the presence ofNicodemus
      at the burial scene is very odd.
      End quote

      I don't think it is. Please see below.

      Recently my eye fell on Mark 15:46. Here, Joseph Arimathea performing
      everything on his own, is a very unlikely scenario. He seems to have time to

      1) first go 'shopping at the spot' (buying fine linen),
      2) next he is able to get Jesus from the cross on his own (historically
      totally unimaginable),
      3) he wraps him (still on his own) in the linen.
      4) takes the dead body (on his own) to the grave (quite a work) and
      5) roles a (big) stone unto the door of the sepulchre (by now he is more
      than exhausted!)

      It is clear: the one-man-show performance gives great reconstructional (time
      and energy) problems.

      Much more likely is the proces of cooperation of several people.
      This makes the presence of Nicodemus in John at the burial scene pretty
      likely. Nicodemus, who has been mentioned in 3.1 as an 'archoon', an
      influential and probably also a rich man, becomes a natural associate to
      Joseph Arimathea, both being members of the same council and (secret)
      followers of Jesus. Together they have more manpower to organize things
      at the spot. I would even infer some women (followers) may have been
      involved in taking care of the body, directly after the taking down from
      the cross (leaving the question who actually took him down).

      Lets move on to the empty tomb, remove the stone and enter!

      Best wishes

      Frides Laméris
      Zuidlaren (Home)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.