Was Joseph of Arimathea Originally the High Priest Joseph?

[Secret Alias]

This is an extension of the SImon the father of Alexander and Rufus conversation but I noticed that not only doesn't the reference to Simon appear in the Gospel of Peter, the reference to Joseph is quite interesting too:

But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod nor any one of his judges. And when they had refused to wash them, Pilate rose up. And then Herod the king commandeth that the Lord be taken, saying to them, What things soever I commanded you to do unto him, do. And there was standing there Joseph the friend of Pilate and of the Lord; and, knowing that they were about to crucify him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked his body. And Herod said, Brother Pilate, even if no one had asked for him, we purposed to bury him, especially as the sabbath draweth on: for it is written in the law, that the sun set not upon one that hath been put to death.

and then Jesus is buried in a garden which apparently belonged to someone named Joseph:

And then they drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord, and laid him upon the earth, and the whole earth quaked, and great fear arose. Then the sun shone, and it was found the ninth hour: and the Jews rejoiced, and gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, since he had seen what good things he had done. And he took the Lord, and washed him, and rolled him in a linen cloth, and brought him into his own tomb, which was called the Garden of Joseph. Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, perceiving what evil they had done to themselves, began to lament and to say, Woe for our sins: the judgement hath drawn nigh, and the end of Jerusalem.

None of this of course helps establish that Joseph was the Caiaphas. Indeed we only know of 'Joseph Caiaphas' as the high priest installed c 18 CE in Josephus ( to whom Josephus refers as Joseph Caiaphas (Ant. 18.35: 'Joseph who is Caiaphas' and 18.95: 'the high priest Joseph called Caiaphas'):

Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.

The Gospel of Nicodemus also recognizes the full name of Caiaphas:

In the fifteenth (al. nineteenth) year of the governance of Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the Romans, and of Herod, king of Galilee, in the nineteenth year of his rule, on the eighth of the Calends of April, which is the 25th of March, in the consulate of Rufus and Rubellio, in the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, Joseph who is Caiaphas being high priest of the Jews:

I just think the Gospel of Peter isn't aware that Joseph is 'of Arimathaea.' Also if the high priest = Logos tradition was known to the gospel writer (which must have been the case) then it stands to reason that the repentance and conversion spoken of in anti-Marcionite sources operated on the level of the high priest.

[Tenorikuma]

I've toyed with the idea that Caiaphas was Paul's Cephas, and some other priest (James ben Damneus?) was his James. In other words, the "Pillars" were simply Jewish (not Christian) leaders whose approval was sought by Paul and other leaders of the nascent "Hellenistic Judaism" movement. The memory of a Sanhedrin dignitary named "Joseph" might have worked its way into the historical Jesus tradition in a number of ways, such as the one you describe.

"Arimathea" (a made-up surname) is probably a Markan invention, maybe an allusion to Josephus (bar Matthias).

[Peter Kirby]

If the author of Mark thought Joseph could be a sympathetic figure and that this Joseph was Caiaphas (and that the "high priest" unnamed in Mark is not sympathetic), then he might not have known the history of the period very well, because "the high priest" (who is not named in Mark) pushes the execution forward. That's a lot of if's, of course.

The weakest point is the claim that Joseph called Caiaphas = Joseph of Arimathea in the Gospel of Mark.... i.e., the point of this thread.

Antiquities 18.

After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.

Antiquities 18.

But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead.

3. But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover. Vitellius was there magnificently received, and released the inhabitants of Jerusalem from all the taxes upon the fruits that were bought and sold, and gave them leave to have the care of the high priest's vestments, with all their ornaments, and to have them under the custody of the priests in the temple, which power they used to have formerly, although at this time they were laid up in the tower of Antonia, the citadel so called, and that on the occasion following: There was one of the [high] priests, named Hyrcanus; and as there were many of that name, he was the first of them; this man built a tower near the temple, and when he had so done, he generally dwelt in it, and had these vestments with him, because it was lawful for him alone to put them on, and he had them there reposited when he went down into the city, and took his ordinary garments; the same things were continued to be done by his sons, and by their sons after them. But when Herod came to be king, he rebuilt this tower, which was very conveniently situated, in a magnificent manner; and because he was a friend to Antonius, he called it by the name of Antonia. And as he found these vestments lying there, he retained them in the same place, as believing, that while he had them in his custody, the people would make no innovations against him. The like to what Herod did was done by his son Archelaus, who was made king after him; after whom the Romans, when they entered on the government, took possession of these vestments of the high priest, and had them reposited in a stone-chamber, under the seal of the priests, and of the keepers of the temple, the captain of the guard lighting a lamp there every day; and seven days before a festival (13) they were delivered to them by the captain of the guard, when the high priest having purified them, and made use of them, laid them up again in the same chamber where they had been laid up before, and this the very next day after the feast was over. This was the practice at the three yearly festivals, and on the fast day; but Vitellius put those garments into our own power, as in the days of our forefathers, and ordered the captain of the guard not to trouble himself to inquire where they were laid, or when they were to be used; and this he did as an act of kindness, to oblige the nation to him. Besides which, he also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch.

According to the Antiquities, this Joseph who was called Caiaphas held the high priesthood for the entire duration that Pilate was around. And for a fairly long time too (circa 18-36 CE).

The high priesthood was nearly a family business (or oligopoly) in the first century AD, with the prefects perhaps taking a cut and threatening to put another family in power temporarily if they don't get their bribe (else why the keen interest on their part as Romans?):

Wiki-

Joseph was the son-in-law of Annas (also called Ananus) the son of Seth. Annas was deposed, but had five sons who served as high priest after him. The terms of Annas, Caiaphas, and the five brothers are:
Ananus (or Annas) the son of Seth (6–15)
Eleazar the son of Ananus (16–17)
Caiaphas - properly called Joseph son of Caiaphas (18–36), who had married the daughter of Annas (John 18:13)
Jonathan the son of Ananus (36–37 and 44)
Theophilus the son of Ananus (37–41)
Matthias the son of Ananus (43)
Ananus the son of Ananus (63)

This last one got the boot in the mysterious 20.200.

[Tenorikuma]

I would note that if Mark had access to Josephus' Wars but not Antiquities (as I suspect), he might not have known who was high priest under Pilate's tenure. Wars does not mention Caiaphas, but it does mention Pilate.

[Clive]

What if Joseph of Arimathea was the retired High Priest? He would have influence, like Ratzinger

[Tenorikuma]

Another possibility: the rich man who places Jesus in his family tomb is called "Joseph" because the story is based on Gen 47.29–31, 50.14 (Joseph and the Cave of Macpelah).

[Secret Alias]

The point of this thread Peter was not to assume Markan priority necessarily or perhaps better yet look at the Gospel of Peter as a separate tradition or one which knows of earlier sources than Mark. I think Koester or Crossan (I forget which now) have theorized that the Gospel of Peter might be earlier than Mark.

Why do the gospels resist identifying Caiaphas as 'Joseph'? Could it be that the identification had theological implications (i.e. the conversion of the Jews or the recognition of who Jesus was i.e. God not man etc)? My assumption would be that (A) if the high priest was originally called Joseph (it was) and (B) the ur-gospel just mentioned the 'Joseph' who buries the crucified one was 'Joseph' that the incident had great symbolic value to the original narrative (a value which later was consciously taken out of the text either because it was controversial and/or it got in the way of taking the text as a literal history of an actual event.

One more thing on the Gospel of Peter as connected somehow with a source behind Mark. Gospel of Peter 6:24 shares with Matthew the unique detail that Jesus was buried in Joseph's own tomb and agrees with John on the tomb's location in a garden (Matt 27:60; John 19:41). These details are not in Mark.

[Secret Alias]

And on Jesus being the 'true' High Priest Hebrews is the earliest and most overt - viz. Jesus is the one and only true High Priest of whom the Levitical priests of the Old Testament were prophetic types:

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God [Heb 4:14]

Forasmuch, then, as He was Himself the veritable High Priest of God the Father, He inspected them according to the hidden purport of the law, which signified that Christ was the true distinguisher and extinguisher of the defilements of mankind. However, what was obviously required by the law He commanded should be done: “Go,” said He, “show yourselves to the priests.” [Tertullian Adv Marc 4.35]