One of the well known aspects of the Easter story is the burying of Jesus in the tomb of Arimithea. Of course skeptics are going to have all sorts of problems with this story.
I dealt with the suggestion that Jesus was not buried at all in this video:
But another question could be about whether Joseph of Arimathea was even a follower of Jesus. This is what Robert Myles suggests in a blog post called Was Joseph of Arimathea a Follower of Jesus?
Before going too far into this conversation, I should sat that ultimately it does not matter. Joseph’s relationship to Jesus does not determine the truth of the story.
I realize that there are people, both Christian and atheist, who would claim that one mistake in the Bible would discredit the entire book. I do not hold to that view.
So why does Myles claim that Jospeh was not a disciple? After all, the New Testament clearly tells us that he was. Matthew and John make this claim explicit.
What Myles seems to do is focus on Mark, which was the earliest Gospel, and Luke. He then claims that Matthew and John added to the narrative the added detail of his discipleship, something that Mark and Luke are not explicit about.
Mark and Luke state that Joseph was “waiting for the kingdom.” Traditionally this has been interpreted as being a disciple of Jesus. Myles argues that this phrase makes just as much sense for a Jewish person who was not following Jesus.
I will not rebut the idea that this language was present in Judaism. I will say that our direct evidence of what first century Jews believed and said is rather limited.
I will say that with all of the talk about the kingdom of God by Jesus in the Gospels, it would be strange for us to not consider a connection between Joseph’s waiting for the kingdom and Jesus’ preaching on the kingdom.
So why do Matthew and John have disciple as a descriptor for Joseph? It could be that they simply wanted to add something.
I would suggest that Matthew and John are some of our earliest interpreters for what Mark says about Joseph and the kingdom. Even if one does not accept inspiration, these are early interpretations that should be taken seriously.
Matthew and John seem to have understood what Mark said as Joseph being a disciple of Jesus. It would make sense that we take this seriously and that it was probably a common interpretation of Joseph’s identity.
While it is possible that a person two thousand years later has a better interpretation of Mark than writers from the first century, I doubt it.
Most likely, Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple of Jesus.
If you want to learn more about Joseph of Arimathea, see my post The Legends of Joseph of Arimathea: Origins, Texts, and Significance.
