Joseph of Arimathea.

[Secret Alias]

I will think about this. Viscerally though I have sat quietly through a number of such discussions at the forum where - at least from my perspective - you have people with limited knowledge of Greek (Ben you here are a welcome addition to the forum) delighting in what Mark would of or could have done with respect to word plays and puns in a language they don't really understand. The 'town' business here is a good case in point. My take away from this is that most of us here are WAY ABOVE our pay grade with respect to 'discovering' complicated linguistic 'tricks' in Mark's gospel. This is something which Jeffery Gibson would be useful to act as an arbiter (I am especially reminded of Gibson's frequent run ins with Pete Brown on the subject of early Christian literature as 'satire').

As I said earlier, my basic takeaway is that treating the gospel as a sophisticated literary composition is something that is difficult for amateurs such as ourselves to pursue with any degree of usefulness. In this case could Mark have intended 'Arimathea' as an allusion to Joseph being Jesus's 'best disciple' (I think that's the point right)? In some ways we see this reflected in the Pentateuch. When Jacob wrestles with the angel or sees God the name of the place reflects the action that has just taken place. I get that. And the gospel might well imitate that style of composition.

The idea that a city was chosen because it is a pun or an allusion to Joseph being the 'best disciple' seems initially plausible. My main beef was Carrier's stretching the bounds of credulity claiming 'town' could be inferred from the name. As I have no better explanation for the name, the rest at least is a decent working hypothesis.

[Ben C. Smith]

In some ways we see this reflected in the Pentateuch. When Jacob wrestles with the angel or sees God the name of the place reflects the action that has just taken place. I get that. And the gospel might well imitate that style of composition.

That was exactly my reference of comparison. The Tanakh puns on place names in this way, so it seems at least feasible that Mark does too.

The idea that a city was chosen because it is a pun or an allusion to Joseph being the 'best disciple' seems initially plausible. My main beef was Carrier's stretching the bounds of credulity claiming 'town' could be inferred from the name. As I have no better explanation for the name, the rest at least is a decent working hypothesis.

Thank you sincerely for your measured response.

Ben.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Boy, have you come to the right place (so to speak). I have criteria for Figurative Use of Names here:

Mark 15:43

• 1) Recognition through reading or sound. Demonstrated above.
  
  2) Demonstrated style of the author. Demonstrated above.
  
  3) Contextual fit. A character sympathetic to Jesus accepts his body just as John's disciples accepted his body.
  
  4) Thematic fit. Action expected of Jesus' disciples, accepting his body (really "accepting" his death. Understand dear Reader?), replaced by stranger to Jesus.
  
  5) Lack of known literal fit. The cruncher as the Brits say. No one has any idea where the hell "Arimathea" is.
  
  6) Fictional story. The overall Empty Tomb story is likely fiction which means the default for any individual piece is fiction.

Note that all six criteria test high for evidence of fiction.

@Ben = I think we agree that regarding "Mark's" (author) reason for the use of the offending "Arimathea" it may have been intended to be a pun (best + disciple) and/or reference to a city (*Ramoth*). The two are not mutually exclusive. I think the pun is even better if it does actually consist of a real town or sounds close to it. That being said, I have Good News and Bad News for you regarding which to prefer.

The Bad News is there is no "Good News" (feel free to expand the reference Markanly to also refer to the term in the Christian Bible). The Good News is, I won't tell you the Bad News. Just kidding. The Bad News for you is that the first criterion above is recognition. I place it first because it is a very important criterion. Now I'm almost certain that "Mark" wrote GMark for a Greek audience 2,000 years ago and not for an English audience 2,000 years later. We see "Arimathea" and our instinct is to recognize it as a place. But what would "Mark's" audience recognize? We agree that the Greek includes "best" and "disciple" so no need for me to demonstrate the details to you.

Now note my other criteria such as theme and context. Again, us English would never see "mathea" anywhere else in GMark. But how many times is the Greek word for "disciple" used in GMark? It is one of the most common words in GMark (Stylomarktricks anyone). Also, is the quality of disciples an important theme in GMark? It is one of the most important themes. So the words "best" and "disciple" would be integral to GMark quantitatively and qualitatively.

As to Greek reader recognition of "Arimathea" as a recognized city, the literal construction of the phrase does show that Joseph came from "Arimathea". Would the Greek reader have identified "Arimathea" as Ramoth? "Arimathea" is supposedly a transliteration so by itself in Greek it means nothing. There are no contemporary references to it so it's unlikely your average Greek reader would identify it as anything specific, only a location (hence "Luke's" editorial "a city of Judea"). Now "Mark" could have used it anyway and put it in there only for him, Johnny and Ed but related to this I ask, what is the threshold for Markan willingness to make up names? Most of his Gospel consists of the impossible/improbable so it is a short Puttristic for him to make up a name.

The Good News for you is that I remember spin (and that would be ironic if he was at Ramoth now) saying that he thinks "Arimathea" does refer to Ramoth. You've given some related Hebrew evidence in this Thread but I do not want to go looking for something that I do not think exists. As you know, the Hebrew definite article is "heh" and not "aleph", and works like the English definite article. So you have an issue getting from "Ramoth" to "Arimathea". What happens most of the time to the definite article (or lack thereof) going from Hebrew to Greek? Does the Hebrew "heh" always transliterate to the Greek "a"? You conclude that "Arimathea" is exactly how the Hebrew "Ramoth" would be transliterated in the Greek. Where is "Ramoth" in the Hebrew?



Josephus of Errancywikia

[Ben C. Smith]

The Bad News for you is that the first criterion above is recognition. I place it first because it is a very important criterion. Now I'm almost certain that "Mark" wrote GMark for a Greek audience 2,000 years ago and not for an English audience 2,000 years later. We see "Arimathea" and our instinct is to recognize it as a place. But what would "Mark's" audience recognize? .... As to Greek reader recognition of "Arimathea" as a recognized city, the literal construction of the phrase does show that Joseph came from "Arimathea". Would the Greek reader have identified "Arimathea" as Ramoth? "Arimathea" is supposedly a transliteration so by itself in Greek it means nothing. There are no contemporary references to it so it's unlikely your average Greek reader would identify it as anything specific, only a location (hence "Luke's" editorial "a city of Judea").

What does this observation do for Bethphage? How easy would it be for ancient Greek readers to recognize Bethphage?

The Good News for you is that I remember spin (and that would be ironic if he was at Ramoth now) saying that he thinks "Arimathea" does refer to Ramoth. You've given some related Hebrew evidence in this Thread but I do not want to go looking for something that I do not think exists. As you know, the Hebrew definite article is "heh" and not "aleph", and works like the English definite article. So you have an issue getting from "Ramoth" to "Arimathea". What happens most of the time to the definite article (or lack thereof) going from Hebrew to Greek? Does the Hebrew "heh" always transliterate to the Greek "a"?

Always? I would not presume to know. But here? In this case? Certainly. I gave the evidence in the OP, where the Hebrew definite article does indeed get rendered as an initial alpha: compare Ramathaim-Zophim (הָרָמָתַ֛יִם צוֹפִ֖ים) in 1 Samuel 1.1 with the LXX transliteration in 1 Kingdoms 1.1 LXX (Αρμαθαιμ Σιφα). (I am not even claiming that this is necessarily the same town; Eusebius thought it was, but, as I said, there were several towns named Ramoth; this one happens to have the dual ending instead of the plural.)

You conclude that "Arimathea" is exactly how the Hebrew "Ramoth" would be transliterated in the Greek.

No, I claim that it is one of the ways Ramoth would be transliterated. I stated that the vowels can be slippery, the consonants less so. I gave examples of all of this.

Ben.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

This is Peter citing a private correspondence with Richard Carrier on the "Best Disciple Town" thing:

Concerning the first, there is a plausible significance to the name Arimathea. Richard Carrier speculates, "Is the word a pun on 'best disciple,' ari[stos] mathe[tes]? Matheia means 'disciple town' in Greek; Ari- is a common prefix for superiority."[99] Since commentators have seen the burial by the outsider Joseph of Arimathea as a contrast to the failure of the disciples and intimates of Jesus, the coincidence that Arimathea can be read as "best disciple town" is staggering. Indeed, it is good evidence that Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional character and that the tomb burial story in the Gospel of Mark is also fictional.

To expand on this a little, mathetes is "disciple", the eia ending is a place-name ending (like sticking a -ville or a -berg or a -ton" on something in English) so matheia (arguably) could be a rendering of something roughly like "disciple-ville." Aristos means "best" (also related to arete - "excellence"), and ari as a prefix denotes, as Carrier says, some kind of superiority (maybe like how people say "super" in contemporary vernacular).

[Secret Alias]

I find the place name thing a stretch. Carrier doesn't possess that kind of sophisticated ability in Greek, nor do I, nor does anyone in this forum. None of us can hope to glean what Mark 'could have' hoped to invoke in the minds of his readers with this name (what 'double entendre' is reasonable to expect for Mark and his audience). My guess is that MacDonald's hypothesis is more reasonable. Carrier IMO overstretches to reach a conclusion which suits his overarching purpose (again).

[Secret Alias]

It is curious that the Gospel of Peter both (a) does not know Joseph is of 'Arimathea' and (b) says he possessed a 'garden' in Jerusalem which took on his name presumably at the time of the writer:

And having taken the Lord, he washed and tied him with a linen cloth and brought him into his own sepulcher, called the Garden of Joseph.

Why would Joseph be identified as of 'another city' when he was in Jerusalem, had his family sepulcher there and owned a garden or an orchard in the city? FWIW since the burial of John was brought up, given that John the Baptist does not appear in the Marcionite gospel (or at least no baptism reference) one might make a case that Arimathea isn't from the original gospel but someone who added it and the burial of John to that text. It is difficult to imagine the docetic tradition having an extended narrative where 'Jesus' is buried possessing all the attributes of a human body.

[Aleph One]

Why would Joseph be identified as of 'another city' when he was in Jerusalem, had his family sepulcher there and owned a garden or an orchard in the city?

My recent reading on the classical period suggested wealthy individuals were well known to own properties in multiple locales, especially where they would create 'gardens' to show off their wealth. And it certainly sounds like Joseph of Arimathea was someone of means from the context. Also, if Jerusalem was the political/religious center for Jews of the region, it doesn't seem that strange to think he might have a residence there. Also, is there some reason why he couldn't have originated in Arimathea and, even though he now resides in Jerusalem, be still known by that title?

Also, I had a question about how Joseph of Arimathea's title relates to Mark's "Simon of Cyrene?" I thought I remember it being discussed on this forum before that the greek literally suggests Cyrene being presented as a last name, instead of "from." Does the case of Simon shed any light on how Mark names his characters? Just ignore this if it isn't of any value; I don't know any greek, and I have to run right now, so no time to dig farther.

[Ben C. Smith]

Also, I had a question about how Joseph of Arimathea's title relates to Mark's "Simon of Cyrene?" I thought I remember it being discussed on this forum before that the greek literally suggests Cyrene being presented as a last name, instead of "from."

To clarify, the Greek of Mark 15.21 seems to treat Cyrenian as a byname, not Cyrene; since a Cyrenian is a person from Cyrene, the element of from is not exactly absent.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

Also, I had a question about how Joseph of Arimathea's title relates to Mark's "Simon of Cyrene?" I thought I remember it being discussed on this forum before that the greek literally suggests Cyrene being presented as a last name, instead of "from."

To clarify, the Greek of Mark 15.21 seems to treat Cyrenian as a surname, not Cyrene; since a Cyrenian is a person from Cyrene, the element of from is not exactly absent.

Good point. For another well-known example of this, consider " John Damascene," i.e. John of Damascus.