How did the story of Joseph of Arimathaea and the empty tomb originate?
The mythicist position is that Mark just made it up, along with the rest of his gospel. Therefore, Paul may not have known anything about it and so would not have mentioned it in his epistles.
On the other hand, if the story represents what the disciples thought had actually happened, then it would have been common knowledge from the start, so Paul would have had no reason to mention it.
John Crossan also contends that Mark created the Joseph of Arimathaea character, but as the culmination of a process of hope and imagination. He suggests that the earliest Christians hoped that those who crucified Jesus had buried him in accordance with biblical law and before the start of the Sabbath. Since Joseph of Arimathaea is described as a member of the temple council and also as a supporter of Jesus, Crossan considers that the story shows how the hope could have been fulfilled and Jesus provided with a decent burial.
In that case, since Paul died only about ten years before Mark wrote his gospel, the process of establishing a coherent story would have taken place while Paul was writing epistles. Why then is there not a single reference to such a controversial matter?
The mythicist position is that Mark just made it up, along with the rest of his gospel.
Well not exactly. To be fair to a position I think is pretty much nonsense I have to say that even the mythicists acknowledge that Mark might have been working from preexisting materials.
Aside from the Transfiguration, the Empty Tomb has always been my favorite story in Mark. It’s really spooky especially given the assumption that 16:8 is the original ending of the gospel. So it is grudgingly that I accept that it is probably not historical. But then I only thought the Transfiguration was historical when I was a believer so there you go.
I should point out that as a historicist (is that what we’re called?) I do not think that all the stories in the NT are historical or even that each story has an original historical core behind it; I simply think that Jesus was a historical figure about whom fantastic tales were spun after his death by his followers and that some of his sayings were remembered. Happened all the time in the ancient world and still happens occasionally in the modern world.
So to the original question: How did the story of Joseph of Arimathaea and the empty tomb originate?
Wish we had a time machine and could sit down for a couple hours with the genius who wrote the gospel of Mark and find out. We’ll never know, really. A tradition perhaps? Did Mark invent it to simply make a theological point? (If the women at the tomb never told anybody then how the hell did Mark find out?)
Prof Ehrman has pointed out what a skilled and subtle storyteller Mark is. Perhaps he wasn’t credulously reporting tall tales as history at all. There is definitely a great degree of literary artistry at work.
This is a non-scholar’s surmise but perhaps the Empty Tomb was originally intended to function as what’s known as an “anti-iconic” symbol. An anti-iconic symbol would be one which is figurative and non-representational. The best example I can think of is the way the Buddha was depicted in the earliest Buddhist art. The Buddha was known as the Tathagata, “the one who has come and gone”. The image is of a person who was here and now has gone (in Buddha’s case to Nirvana). So the earliest depictions of the Buddha were of a fully bridled, saddled horse with no rider. Or a throne with no one sitting on it. (The classic depictions we see now all over the east of the Buddha sitting in meditation came much later.) The Buddha is depicted as being absent. He was here. Now he’s gone.
Perhaps the Empty Tomb was a literary symbol to illustrate that Jesus was dead but now is no longer dead. And that he was really dead but now he’s really alive. You see how the Empty Tomb can fulfill both functions? A tomb is where we place the dead but this one is empty! Mark could have added post-Easter appearances; in fact the story seems to set us up for them. But perhaps he was too much of an artist to want to depict that which is beyond real depiction. (Notice that the appearances in the other gospels tend toward the crudely literal.) So he is depicting Jesus’ presence by depicting his absence. And Jesus’ post-Easter appearance to others is implied in the ending at 16:8 is it not? If the women didn’t tell, somebody else must have seen Jesus and reported it, right? How else did Mark’s readers ever find out?
Anyway that’s my suggestion. Eventually I’ll work up enough courage to run it by Prof Ehrman. It might provide him with a modicum of amusement.
Stephen said
The mythicist position is that Mark just made it up, along with the rest of his gospel.Well not exactly. To be fair to a position I think is pretty much nonsense I have to say that even the mythicists acknowledge that Mark might have been working from preexisting materials.
Aside from the Transfiguration, the Empty Tomb has always been my favorite story in Mark. It’s really spooky especially given the assumption that 16:8 is the original ending of the gospel. So it is grudgingly that I accept that it is probably not historical. But then I only thought the Transfiguration was historical when I was a believer so there you go.
Interesting point Stephen
My own less developed thought is that Mark ends his story with the empty tomb as a way of generating interest. That is this is a device to get people thinking about it; getting them to try and fill in the blanks so to speak. However, the riderless horse concept is interesting. We’ll never know what Marks intentions were, but it is instructive that the 16:8 ending continues to be a subject people ask about, discuss etc.
Having no reason to think one way or the other about Joseph of Arimathea, I can think of (gotta love the “would have” arguments) a good reason why it would have gone unmentioned (Although Paul does claim Jesus was BURIED) It wan’t important to early believers: Early believers were focused on claiming the resurrection. An empty tomb says nothing about that. If one accepts the Gospel accounts, all the empty tomb does is make ppl think the body has been misplaced. That Mark may have used the idea as a way of emphasis, a symbol or a device to encourage people to think . All of this amounts to speculation. Now if Crossan and Now Ehrman are right, we have good reason to doubt the existence of a tomb along with the traditions of an empty one, but if Mark is not writing a historical account and is, instead writing an evangelic tract, then the existence of a tomb, let alone an empty one doesn’t make much of a difference.
It wan’t important to early believers
it seems to me that the man in the tomb says that the women came to the wrong place.
“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for jesus…. he has risen! he is not here. See the place where they laid him.
wrong place. find him somewhere else.
Kazibwe Edris said
it seems to me that the man in the tomb says that the women came to the wrong place.
“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for jesus…. he has risen! he is not here. See the place where they laid him.
wrong place. find him somewhere else.
That is not what is meant. If he wasn’t there, but he HAD BEEN there, what would they say? They’d say “he’s not here, see where he was laid”. And, that’s what is quoted.
If the intent had been that Jesus had literally been interred at some other location why would they say “SEE the place”? The Greek, ἴδε, is translated as “behold” as well. That is not a word one would use for some other location, but a place that was in the immediate area. Literally the Greek is an interjection like Oh! or Ha!. That’s not the kind of word that would have been used to tell someone to go see some other place.
Ehrman’s thoughts
Would Anyone Invent the Women at the Tomb?
It is often argued by Christian apologists that no one would make up the story of the discovery of the empty tomb precisely because according to these stories, it was womenwho found the tomb. According to this line of reasoning, women were widely thought of as untrustworthy and, in fact, their testimony could not be allowed in courts of law. According to this view, if someone wanted to invent the notion of a discovered tomb, they would be sure that it was discovered by credible witnesses, namely by the male disciples.
I used to hold this view as well, and so I see its force. But now that I’ve gone more deeply into the matter, I see its real flaw. It suffers, in short, from a poverty of imagination. It does not take much mental effort at all to imagine who would come up with a story in which the female followers of Jesus, rather than the male followers, discovered the tomb.
The first thing to point out is that we are not talking about a Jewish court of law in which witnesses are being ca lled to testify. We’re talking about oral traditions about the man Jesus. But who would invent women as witnesses to the empty tomb? Well, for openers, maybe women would. We have good reasons for thinking that women were particularly well represented in the early Christian communities. We know from the letters of Paul – from passages such as Romans 16 – that women played crucial leadership roles in the churches: ministering as deacons, leading the services in their homes, engaging in missionary activities. Paul speaks of one woman in the Roman church as “foremost among the apostles” (Junia in Rom. 16:8). Women are also reputed to have figured prominently in Jesus’ own ministry, throughout the Gospels. That may well have been the case, historically. But in any event, there is nothing at all implausible in thinking that women who found their newfound Christian communities personally liberating told stories about Jesus in light of their own situations, so that women were portrayed as playing an even greater part in the life and death of Jesus than they actually did, historically. It does not take a great deal of imagination to think that female storytellers indicated that women were the first to believe, after finding that his tomb was empty.
Moreover, this claim that it was specifically women who found the empty tomb makes the best sense of the realities of history. Preparing bodies for burial was commonly the work of women, not men. And so why wouldn’t the stories tell of women who went to prepare the body? Moreover, if, in the stories, they’re the ones who went to the tomb to anoint the body, naturally they would be the ones who found the tomb empty.
In addition, our earliest sources are quite clear that the male disciples fled the scene and were not present for Jesus’ crucifixion. As I stated earlier, this may well be historical, that the disciples in fear of their own lives not only went into hiding, but fled town in order to avoid arrest. Where would they go? Presumably back home, to Galilee. That was over a hundred miles and would have taken at least a week on foot. If the men had scattered, or returned home, who was left in the tradition to go to the tomb? If it wasn’t the fleeing disciples, it must have been the other followers of Jesus, the women who had come with the apostolic band to Jerusalem but who presumably did not need to fear arrest.
Moreover, one can imagine strictly literary reasons for “inventing” the women at the empty tomb. Let’s suppose it was Mark himself who invented the story. I personally don’t think he did; there is no way to know, of course, but my suspicion is that it was a story Mark inherited from his tradition. But suppose Mark did invent it. There would be plenty of reasons, just from his own literary perspective, to do so. The more you know about Mark’s Gospel, the easier it is to think of reasons. Let me give just one. Mark makes a special point throughout his narrative that the male disciples never do understand who Jesus is. Despite all his miracles, despite all his teachings, despite everything they see him do and say, they never do get it. And so at the end of the Gospel, who is it who learns that Jesus has not stayed dead but has been raised? It is the women. Not the male disciples. The women never tell. As a result, the male disciples never do come to understand. That is all consistent with Mark’s view.
Again, I’m not saying that I think Mark invented the story. But if we can imagine very easily a reason for Mark to have invented it, it is no leap at all to think that one or more of his predecessors may also have had reasons for doing so. In the end, we simply cannot say that there would be “no reason” for someone to invent the story of women discovering the empty tomb.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As interesting and imaginative as these theories are (especially mine) they flounder because of the central problem. We have absolutely no access to the intentions of the gospel writers. We are more or less forced to take their writings at face value. An important working principal: any interpretation that presupposes a particular intention on the part of the NT writers should be automatically suspect.
but he said that he was going to see them in galilee not in a tomb (mark 14:28)
like spiker said, the tomb didn’t seem important to mark.
That is not what is meant. If he wasn’t there, but he HAD BEEN there, what would they say? They’d say “he’s not here, see where he was laid”. And, that’s what is quoted.
i guess you are right but i was trying to say something else. at the moment i am unable to put in words what is in my mind.
Would Anyone Invent the Women at the Tomb?
The Women at the Tomb can easily be explained from a mythicist’s point of view. Read first this from the Book of Revelation 21.2: “I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.” The first Christians believed Jerusalem to be a woman – or a bride. We see this in many places in the Old Testament.
A key verse to understand the idea behind the Women at the Tomb, and the origin of the woman named Mary Magdalene, can be read out of Micah 4,8:
“And you – tower(Migdal or Migdalah) of the flock, the tower of the daughter of Zion – to you it shall come; yea, the former kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem”.
In Hebrew מגדל Migdal means “tower”, “fortress”; in Aramaic, “Magdala” means “tower”
moose on the loose!
Kazibwe Edris said
but he said that he was going to see them in galilee not in a tomb (mark 14:28)like spiker said, the tomb didn’t seem important to mark.
I didn’t say anything of the kind. I said an explanation for why it wasn’t mentioned by Paul et al is because it was unimportant to them. If the empty tomb were unimportant to Mark, why would he bother mentioning it; particularly as the conclusion of his book.
Paul was writing some 15 to 20 years before Mark. Burial and resurrection are both mentioned by Paul. Consequently there would be an empty tomb. Just because they do not use the phrase empty tomb doesn’t mean they didn’t believe in one. Mark, for what ever reason, uses it to great effect. It’s simply another way of describing something they all believed in; the resurrection
Ehrman’s thoughts
Again, I’m not saying that I think Mark invented the story. But if we can imagine very easily a reason for Mark to have invented it, it is no leap at all to think that one or more of his predecessors may also have had reasons for doing so. In the end, we simply cannot say that there would be “no reason” for someone to invent the story of women discovering the empty tomb.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Did Paul know anything about this story? Who did he think had buried Jesus? Why does Paul not mention this matter in his epistles?
moose said
Would Anyone Invent the Women at the Tomb?The Women at the Tomb can easily be explained from a mythicist’s point of view. Read first this from the Book of Revelation 21.2: “I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.” The first Christians believed Jerusalem to be a woman – or a bride. We see this in many places in the Old Testament.
A key verse to understand the idea behind the Women at the Tomb, and the origin of the woman named Mary Magdalene, can be read out of Micah 4,8:
“And you – tower(Migdal or Migdalah) of the flock, the tower of the daughter of Zion – to you it shall come; yea, the former kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem”.In Hebrew מגדל Migdal means “tower”, “fortress”; in Aramaic, “Magdala” means “tower”
moose on the loose!
As Keener pointed out, when Mark was writing his gospel, he couldn’t just flip to Revelation. It wouldn’t exist for 20 years or more years. It would make more sense to suggest Mark is the basis for the verse in Revelation; yet there’s little reason for that.
You commit the same mistake fundies do by assuming that other books of the bible are the CONTEXT for the rest. The OT doesn’t talk about the first Christians or what they believed. The Hebrew means “of Magdala”. That is, Mary is from Magdala
Simply positing similarities and saying they’re connected SOMEHOW because doing so makes it interesting, doesn’t prove anything
Also a woman at the tomb is not a bride. Why is Micah 4,8 a key verse? And why is Mark-most likely an educated Greek, using Jewish literary techniques when he is most likely (according to Carrier anyway) using Greek literary techniques and devices?
spiker said
I said an explanation for why it wasn’t mentioned by Paul et al is because it was unimportant to them. If the empty tomb were unimportant to Mark, why would he bother mentioning it; particularly as the conclusion of his book.
Paul was writing some 15 to 20 years before Mark. Burial and resurrection are both mentioned by Paul. Consequently there would be an empty tomb. Just because they do not use the phrase empty tomb doesn’t mean they didn’t believe in one. Mark, for what ever reason, uses it to great effect. It’s simply another way of describing something they all believed in; the resurrection
Paul declares (1 Corinthians : 15) that Christ was buried and was raised to life on the third day.
The matter of burial was of fundamental importance in order to argue that Jesus really had died. How could Paul counter all his opponents if he couldn’t even explain what had happened to Jesus’ body? Who did Paul believe had buried it?
Blackwell said
Did Paul know anything about this story? Who did he think had buried Jesus? Why does Paul not mention this matter in his epistles?
You’re trying too hard. Arguably we only have 7 of Paul’s epistles. Assuming that the existing record is the same as the entire record is an oversimplification. For all we know Paul wrote another twenty epistles. Why should we claim that Paul does not mention them in his epistles when we probably don’t have all of them? By definition the historical record is fragmented. The further you go back in time, the more fragmented the record gets. But as I argued earlier, maybe the concept was unimportant to Paul. Maybe he thought it was obvious and didn’t need stating. We do know that belief in Jesus resurrection was a very early belief, already codified by the time Paul came on the scene, and that it became the defining belief for Christianity. Presumably there would be an empty grave of some kind.
Blackwell said
Paul declares (1 Corinthians : 15) that Christ was buried and was raised to life on the third day.
The matter of burial was of fundamental importance in order to argue that Jesus really had died. How could Paul counter all his opponents if he couldn’t even explain what had happened to Jesus’ body? Who did Paul believe had buried it?
So you think there were a bunch of people arguing that Jesus survived Roman crucifixion and that Paul could refute them by talking about Joseph of Arimathea?
spiker said
So you think there were a bunch of people arguing that Jesus survived Roman crucifixion and that Paul could refute them by talking about Joseph of Arimathea?
If Paul believed that Joseph of Arimathaea had buried Jesus’s body, that is what he would have told people, unless they knew it already.
Paul says that the body was buried, so who do you think he believed had buried it?
Blackwell said
If Paul believed that Joseph of Arimathaea had buried Jesus’s body, that is what he would have told people, unless they knew it already.
Paul says that the body was buried, so who do you think he believed had buried it?
Are you sure that’s all he said, BW? Here again your hanging your conclusion on a wouldhave and an IF:if we have everything Paul wrote. And if he knew about it he would have….. these are just all around bad arguments
I don’t know who he believed buried the body. There’s no evidence either way. Why speculate? Suppose he was buried by Joseph of Jerusalem, Terry of Tarsus, Gilbert of Galilee. You’re trying way too hard.
spiker said
Are you sure that’s all he said, BW? Here again your hanging your conclusion on a wouldhave and an IF:if we have everything Paul wrote. And if he knew about it he would have….. these are just all around bad arguments
I don’t know who he believed buried the body. There’s no evidence either way. Why speculate? Suppose he was buried by Joseph of Jerusalem, Terry of Tarsus, Gilbert of Galilee. You’re trying way too hard.
spiker said
Are you sure that’s all he said, BW? Here again your hanging your conclusion on a wouldhave and an IF:if we have everything Paul wrote. And if he knew about it he would have….. these are just all around bad arguments
I don’t know who he believed buried the body. There’s no evidence either way. Why speculate? Suppose he was buried by Joseph of Jerusalem, Terry of Tarsus, Gilbert of Galilee. You’re trying way too hard.
As usual, you have completely missed the point of the argument.
Of course no-one knows exactly what Paul or anyone else thought about the burial of Jesus before Mark wrote his gospel, but you need to provide a credible explanation of how the story developed in order to support a hypothesis that it developed gradually.
If there is no possible explanation, then the hypothesis is wrong.
I suggest that Christians actually believed the Joseph of Arimathaea story right from the start. It does not seem that you have any credible alternative
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert