vergari said
It’s hard to imagine one arguing that there is not special Matthew material (i.e., a unique source) included in Matthew’s account of the burial and empty tomb. This material includes: (i) Joseph being a disciple; (ii) the tomb belonging to Joseph and being new; (iii) the Pharisees telling Pilate they were concerned that the disciples would steal the body from the tomb; and (iv) guards sent by Pilate ensuring that the sepulchre was sealed.
The inclusion of the guard verification of a sealed tomb and rumors of the disciples stealing the body doesn’t look at all like a unilateral redaction, but rather coming from a different source. As to the details on Joseph, one might argue that Matthew removed Mark’s account of Joseph being “a councillor of honorable estate,” because he found it embarrassing; but that doesn’t explain the inclusion of the tomb belonging to Joseph and being new in Matthew’s version. If it were true that Matthew regarded accounts of Joseph being Sanhedrin as embarrassing, then it makes less sense that he would add material that Joseph had placed Jesus in his own new tomb. Instead, one would think Matthew would want to downplay the benevolence of Joseph. This would indicate that Matthew is drawing this material from a separate source or sources.
Interesting argument. And after all, if we assume Mark had sources of his own, then we have no basis for assuming Matthew didn’t have some of those sources, even while finding Mark a useful collection of material to draw upon–and change, because Matthew is very different from Mark. It’s not merely that he has different sources, such as Q. It’s that he wants to tell a different story. He’ll copy Mark pretty closely when Mark’s story doesn’t tell him something unacceptable.
Two stories that say Joseph was an upright and decent Jewish man who had some influence in Jerusalem. Two stories that say he was more or less a secret Christian (who somehow still had influence in Jerusalem). I see two currents in the Christian attitude towards unconverted Jews. Mark and Luke suggest–in concurrence with Jesus’ own ideas–that it is only by someone’s deeds that you can know his or her character. Matthew and John say “With us or against us.”
Why do you add all these personal comments about what you think I imagine or how you imagine I’m acting?
Robert I stand in awe of your willingness to go toe to toe with godspell. I simply don’t have the patience. You have to spend all your time correcting his every misapprehension and wading through his psuedo-psychologizing. It just wears me out. I would rather spend my time talking about things I care about. More to follow.
Robert, you will I hope be pleased to learn that Roger David Aus believes Joseph of Arimathea and the rock-hewn tomb to be an invention, and not necessarily meant to be taken literally in their original form. A parallel is being drawn with the burial of Moses, who like Jesus, died before his people reached the promised land.
You may be less pleased (though not surprised) to learn that he believes Mark got the story from a narrative written by a Palestinian Jewish Christian, in Aramaic.
As always, his arguments are intricate, drawing on a deep familiarity with Haggadic literature, and a bit torturous to get through (probably even for people who know the languages), but he summarizes at the end, which is considerate.
There are often no earlier materials to rely upon, so he assumes, not without justification, that you can infer earlier traditions from the later Jewish texts. Sometimes you have to make bricks without straw. Or you don’t have anything to build with. I’m sure he’d agree it’s problematic, but the entire field is problematic. Ancient history as a whole is problematic. Modern history is problematic (and I would know). If you don’t want problems, stay away from history. Is my general drift.
He was only really interested in Mark’s account, so I didn’t get the cross-textual analysis of the four different accounts of Joseph I was hoping for, but he did come up with a fairly convincing explanation of where ‘Arimathea’ comes from. I do not have the patience to type it out, though. It relates to Moses’ burial place. But even he admits it takes a bit of finagling.
We were having arguments about the Aramaic thing, is all I meant. Well, that was more Stephen, true. I get you two mixed up sometimes. 😉
Robert said
I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever about your numbers iii and iv. Never studied these in any detail, accordingly have not formed an opinion.
Why do you think it might have been embarrassing for Matthew that Joseph of Arimathea was ‘a councillor of honorable estate’? I don’t follow your reasoning here.
As for the tomb belonging to Joseph, that might merely be a clarification of something left unexplained in Mark’s text. Whether it was a clarification Matthew heard or read in a written source or added himself, whose to say which is more likely and why?
If Matthew is also adding that Joseph ‘was taught/discipled by Jesus’, why would Matthew also want to downplay the benevolence of Joseph. Surely Matthew did not think that Jesus’ followers were less likely to be benevolent, right? I’m also not following your argument here.
I’m afraid not.
Let’s take a step back. Earlier in this thread, you yourself suggested Matthew’s account of Joseph of Arimathea was simply a rewriting or modification of Mark’s account, without a unique source. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
You followed that up by repeatedly posing that question:
“[T]he question is whether or not you have specific reasons for believing or assuming that Matthew’s specific changes to Mark’s account are attributable to an independent source or rather Matthew’s own redaction of Mark’s account. * * *
“Do you have any reason for attributing Matthew’s redaction of Mark to a separate source other than Matthew’s own redactional perspective?”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Firstly, to me, this appears to be a situation where the burden is on the person claiming redaction of any earlier account without new sources to substantiate that argument. So far, the only reason you’ve given for thinking Matthew’s version was simply a redaction of Mark’s account without any independent source or tradition is the very argument suggested by godspell earlier, which you adopted for these purposes:
“Matthew dislikes imputing any decent action to any Jew who hadn’t converted, and certainly does not want to believe any Jew on the council would behave this way.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So, this was an argument you used. If you don’t agree with it — and now ask “Why do you think it might have been embarrassing for Matthew that Joseph of Arimathea was ‘a councillor of honorable estate’?” — the question returns to you: what reason, other than what’s been articulated above, is there to think that Matthew’s version is redaction of Mark’s account without any independent source?
Secondly, I pointed out above that Matthew’s entire account of the burial and sealing of the tomb — which also includes the rumors of the disciples stealing the body and Pilate ordering the guards to ensure the sepulchre was sealed — appear to be from a unique source/tradition independent from Mark. I then went on to suggest that this source or tradition very well may account for Matthew’s additions of Joseph being a disciple and him burying the body in his own new tomb.
The reason I suggested that the new material about Jospeh in Matthew makes less sense as a redaction is that the espoused reason for excising material from Mark, i.e., embarrassment of the Sanhedrin, does not conform with adding new material that aggrandizes the very person who was the subject of the embarrassingly material Matthew removed.
You are a much more patient person than I, vergari.
I suppose in part because I can’t convince myself that what we type here matters in any way, except to the extent that we can use a forum like this to test our own preconceptions, challenge ourselves, stretch our mental muscles. Or we can get bogged down in pedantry, which is fairly pointless, since none of us are qualified pedants. Autodidacts, at best. Dilettantes might be the best word. (Well, I won’t speak for you.)
My current opinion, which I’ve reached as the result of this exchange, is that the original story of Joseph and the tomb was largely symbolic and devotional in nature, but each time it was adapted, it became more literal, because to later writers, Joseph was a real person, whose actions had to be explained. Matthew and John, feeling a deep loathing for any Jewish authority, had to separate Joseph from Judaism, make him into a proto-Christian. Mark and Luke, perhaps wanting a rapprochement between Christians and unconverted Jews (some of whom would be in the Kingdom simply for having behaved compassionately, regardless of their beliefs about Jesus), showed us a Joseph who is a member of the very body that handed Jesus over to Pilate, and yet he is a just and decent man who comes from a similar tradition in Judaism to Jesus.
I think it unlikely Jesus was laid in a tomb cut out of the rock, because that seems to be a reference to Moses’ burial place–the language matches up. And Jesus is often compared to Moses in the gospels, may indeed have seen parallels between himself and Moses. We can’t know what happened to Jesus’ body, but it’s not out of the question that it wasn’t the usual fate of a crucified man, since this was hardly the usual way someone got crucified. Probably everyone at the time thought it was an odd case, though not a very important one. There may have been no empty tomb, but there’s a blank space there, and people fill it with different stories, none of which can be confirmed. And possibly none of them really matter, because it was the life Jesus lived that made people unable to accept he’d just died for no reason. And yes, that’s my way of filling the blank. Nor am I alone in that.
I should add here that the historicity of the burial of the body was never a matter of dispute, even with followers of Judaism and Islam, until the concept of mythicism came around in the 19th Century.
Rather, the earliest polemic against resurrection was not that Jesus wasn’t crucified and buried, but that (following crucifixion) his body was stolen from the tomb by his disciples. This, obviously, makes it into Matthew. It also survives well into post-War Judaism and is reflected in the 2nd Century Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho and later makes it into the Toledot Yeshu.
Islamic traditions dating to the 8th and 9th centuries hold that Jesus didn’t really die at all. But these seem to be laid on theological foundations, rather than historical ones.
I would actually characterize skepticism of the burial as a subset of mythicism, to wit: a simple, not supernatural claim (like Jesus’s existence, apocalyptic preaching and crucifixion) is treated as non-historical.
godspell said
I think it unlikely Jesus was laid in a tomb cut out of the rock, because that seems to be a reference to Moses’ burial place–the language matches up. And Jesus is often compared to Moses in the gospels, may indeed have seen parallels between himself and Moses.
Can you educate me here? I’m not nearly as versed on the OT. What does the OT say about Moses’s burial place? TIA.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)