Jesus of Ramathaim

HansMustermann

Penultimate Amazing
HansMustermann
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
23,741
So, since everyone is doing their own Historical Jesus reconstructions, I thought I'd have another stab at my own. Be warned that lots of cherrypicking will be involved, along with copious handwaving, and some liberal application of the argument from personal incredulity (a.k.a., "I don't think they would...") An ass pull or two may be involved too. And I'm going to use the Bible as evidence.

I.e., you know, the usual, just without an academic title ;)

(Of course, the alternative is that those parts are made up.)

So I'm going to start my story backwards (hey, it worked for some movies;)), from the crucifixion and burial.

So I'm told by all four gospels -- and it's not often that John agrees with the 3 synoptics about something -- that there was a rich guy from Arimathea, or at least well off enough to have a new Kokh type tomb cut out of rock, and in Jerusalem no less. So, you know, he probably was no Crassus, but still at least some fairly prosperous merchant or possibly land owner.

The first thing that's curious about Joseph Of Arimathea is that nobody else ever heard of Arimathea, so it may well be just a made up detail to make that character look more real. Alternately, it may actually be Ha-Ramathaim, i.e., "the Ramathaim", which is a real city, a little north of Jerusalem. I'll go with the latter.

The second curious thing is that apparently he just need to go to Pilate and ask for Jesus's body, and Pilate doesn't ask anything else than turning to a centurion and going, "Is he dead yet?" Once that's confirmed, Joseph of Arimathea is free to take the body and do whatever he wishes with it.

It's curious, because the Romans didn't have a custom to give bodies to perfect strangers, especially ones who (according to John) wouldn't even admit being pals with the deceased. There are however documented cases where the body of a convicted criminal was give to his family, as a gesture of goodwill. The normal procedure was to deny them the body, so even that was unusual, but it was not unprecedented. And much as everyone agrees that Pilate was an ass, he might conceivably concede to that, if he's convinced that he executed just a crazy guy.

The third WTH is that Joseph Of Arimathea isn't mentioned anywhere before or after. Which is weird, because he's the only witness that the body had indeed been buried. And even the women don't seem to think they need his permission to open his grave and anoint Jesus's body. Although they'd make themselves guilty of a capital offence if they opened the tomb without his permission. So there's something odd about this character, the way he only appears for a paragraph, and before and after nobody seems to need to mention him.

So I'm thinking... what if we already knew Joseph of Arimathea as Joseph, Jesus's own father? Pilate could release the body to HIM.

Now this may seem like an ass-pull to rationalize just the burial narative, but Jesus the son of a fairly well-off merchant makes sense of a lot more stuff in the gospels.

For a start, his travels all over the place, including to such major trade hubs as Tyre or, to a lesser extent, Sidon, now kinda make sense. He could have gone there on business for his dad.

It also makes sense why Jesus would be so versed in the Law as to just quote a passage from it off the top of his head when people make a fuss over his being anointed with expensive oils, and on other occasions. Or that he can just go teach in the synagogue in his home-town. As the son of a well off merchant he would likely get some education, and he'd probably even be literate.

It also now makes sense that he'd do clever puns in Greek (e.g., John 3:3), or occasionally seem to go by the Greek Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew or Aramaic versions of the scripture. A lot of the upper and middle classes were fluent in Greek, and for some it was even pretty much the first language.

It also makes sense of such things as why he can just go get some people to come with him in the beginning of his ministry (real people don't just go on the first day with the first guy who says "come with me") or why at least Peter has a sword. A Jesus going out on business for his father could have just hired them as caravan workers and/or guards.

And it would most certainly explain why he acts like a spoiled brat at times. E.g., getting pissed off at a fig tree for not having fruit for him outside fig season, or imputing to his host in Luke that he didn't wash Jesus's feet, etc.

Etc.

And, sure, if you want to tell me that I can't just believe the bible without corroboration or that other parts contradict my version... welcome to the club. I'll be the first to say that.

But the question is, is it possible? And is it any less believable than other reconstructions based on just the bible?
 
One expects in this scenario that Joseph and Mary were divorced, since they didn't associate with one another, even at the crucifixion, though both would have been present. Joseph had already threatened to divorce Mary once before, and maybe he eventually carried through. Could be Joseph was simply fed up with Mary's holier-than-thou attitude.
 
I thought Joseph the Carpenter was dead by the time of the Crucifixion. I guess I'm wrong though.
 
Hans: That your scenario is as plausible as any, underpins the fact that, assuming Jesus to be historical, about the only thing we can say about him was that he was a messianic pretender, who had a cynic philosophers view of the world, which also meshed with a view that was apocalyptic.
 
Most plausible version I've heard so far, you just need to call any doubters cranks n slap a $300 paywall on it now.......Welcome to Biblical scholarship!!!
 
HansMustermann said:
It's curious, because the Romans didn't have a custom to give bodies to perfect strangers, especially ones who (according to John) wouldn't even admit being pals with the deceased. There are however documented cases where the body of a convicted criminal was give to his family, as a gesture of goodwill. The normal procedure was to deny them the body, so even that was unusual, but it was not unprecedented. And much as everyone agrees that Pilate was an ass, he might conceivably concede to that, if he's convinced that he executed just a crazy guy.
Click to expand...
Well, the Bible makes it clear that Pilot thought Jesus wasn't worth putting to death (not necessarily that he was innocent, just that he wasn't worth the time or effort). He had Jesus killed to appeas a rather violent block of the population. That would make it somewhat more plausible that Pilot would give the body to a family member--after all, far as Pilot was concerned it was an annoying triviality, quite probably one of a few hundred he had to deal with at any given time, and if this made it go away so much the better.

Also, it's worth pointing out that name changes in the Bible aren't uncommon--most famously, Jesus was actually Yeshua something or other. So changing Ha-Ramathaim to Arimathea isn't actually implausible. If the main character's name--or, in the opinion of believers, GOD'S name--can be changed, altering a city's name is trivial.
 
Brown said:
One expects in this scenario that Joseph and Mary were divorced, since they didn't associate with one another, even at the crucifixion, though both would have been present. Joseph had already threatened to divorce Mary once before, and maybe he eventually carried through. Could be Joseph was simply fed up with Mary's holier-than-thou attitude.
Click to expand...

I'd never thought of Jesus as a spoiled brat from a broken middle-class home before, but it all makes perfect sense. It might also explain why he was so anti-divorce.

He worshipped his father as an Authority Figure and blamed his mum for the divorce. He was still attracted to women like her (although not in the biblical sense), even hung out with one of the same name. Mostly he hung out with the men down at the docks...

"What are you rebelling against Jesus?"
"Whatta ya got?"
 
@Dinwar
Well, indeed. That's kind of my point. Pilate as a Roman, and especially considering the details of most of his governorship (he couldn't command a legion, and had to call on the legate of Syria for any military help... but that post was vacant for most of his time in office, so if crap hit the fan, he'd be up crap creek without a paddle), would probably execute even a crazy innocent if that's what it took to keep the peace, but he might be inclined to release his body to the family as a gesture of good will.

Especially if the father is an upstanding, rich and (even by virtue of being rich alone) somewhat influential member of the community in Jerusalem. Political considerations like that were very normal, and, frankly, Pilate needed all the allies he can possibly get. If what it takes to get some support from a local council member (Mark 15:43) is letting him bury his own son, I have no doubt that a lot of Romans would have been inclined to grant that request.

But he would not release a body to a stranger, because the whole point of laws against stealing bodies or desecrating graves was to not allow strangers to haul other people's bodies. The ancient Romans were pretty uptight about what happens to heir corpse. And if he actually were inclined to pawn off bodies to whoever asked for it, I think his enemies would have not hesitated to use that against him.
 
Last edited:
I'd also add that fathers moving to a major city while letting a son run the family farms or business, was not entirely uncommon. E.g., in Rome, just see the case that launched Cicero's career as a superstar advocate.
 
Dinwar said:
Well, the Bible makes it clear that Pilot thought Jesus wasn't worth putting to death (not necessarily that he was innocent, just that he wasn't worth the time or effort). He had Jesus killed to appeas a rather violent block of the population. That would make it somewhat more plausible that Pilot would give the body to a family member--after all, far as Pilot was concerned it was an annoying triviality, quite probably one of a few hundred he had to deal with at any given time, and if this made it go away so much the better.

Also, it's worth pointing out that name changes in the Bible aren't uncommon--most famously, Jesus was actually Yeshua something or other. So changing Ha-Ramathaim to Arimathea isn't actually implausible. If the main character's name--or, in the opinion of believers, GOD'S name--can be changed, altering a city's name is trivial.
Click to expand...

You might want to take the biblical version of Pontius Pilate with a grain of salt. He is depicted in the gospels as somewhat sympathetic to Jesus and fearful of a mob.

Josephus paints a far different picture of him. In one instance, in his Antiquities of the Jews, he tells how Pilate secreted soldiers dressed as civilians, carrying weapons under their cloaks, within a protesting mob. At a given signal from Pilate, they drew their weapons and laid into the unarmed protestors, killing and wounding many of them, and effectively dispersing the mob (Antiq. Book 18, Chapter 3, item 2).

As I recall, the Romans eventually removed Pilate from office for excessive brutality. Of course, it didn't help him that his mentor, Lucius Aelius Sejanus, captian of the Praetorian Guard, who plotted to assassinate Emperor Tiberius and seize control of the empire, had been condemned and executed. As the protege of Sejanus, Pilate was likely a very pragmatic sort, with few scruples and quite willing to use violent means to achieve an end.
 
Well, my version is kinda counting on him to be the pragmatic sort. After all, releasing the body of a son of the local council in exchange for support is as pragmatic as it gets, by Roman political standards. Roman politics were often compared to a Mafia state, and trading favours was pretty much par for the course. As long as he wasn't breaking any laws, but just being less of a dick to the family than normal, it was a safe thing for Pilate to trade in exchange for local support.

Which we know from Philo that he was pretty much required to do. His superiors all the way to the Emperor were requiring him to do whatever it takes to keep the Pax Romana, even if it means being less inflexible to the locals.
 
Hans: Considering that Armageddon is derived from, IIRC har Megiddo, "hill of Megiddo," could it be har Ramathaim, instead of ha Ramathaim? Ramathaim sounds like a masculine plural. Do you have any idea what it means?
 
This isn't an outlandish proposition, actually; as if Joseph was a tekton and his son followed that suit, and then up and decided to join the Galilean Peacecore and fight for the people's preservation (or what-have-you), then...yeah...he would be reasonably educated as you can't really be an ignorant tekton (kind of need to know money systems, math, and at least some levels of basic reading in at least two languages), he would have traveled wherever there was work and that wouldn't mean sitting around at home whittling sticks, and had he chosen to abandon all of this to take up an activist's pilgrimage...his 'doing-better-than-many' family would probably react as is cited in the Gospel accounts and think he had gone mad (perhaps he had).

The "Arimathea" portion isn't really that huge of a deal, imo, as that's still roughly in the ballpark area, and there's nothing to state that such wasn't where Joseph was from...it's not like they are painted in the texts as having been in one spot for hundreds of years and dedicated to their place of residence (quite the opposite picture is painted).
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
... Roman politics were often compared to a Mafia state, and trading favours was pretty much par for the course. As long as he wasn't breaking any laws, but just being less of a dick to the family than normal, it was a safe thing for Pilate to trade in exchange for local support.
...
Click to expand...

And it would be reasonable to think Pilate could be expected to have accepted any gesture of gratitude in the form of monies, properties, etc that might have been offered by Joseph for the favour.

An interesting little idea, Hans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom