Joseph of Arimathea Buying Linen On Passover?

[Adrift]

So, I was thinking of continuing a series of threads on subjects that I sometimes see skeptics bring up, and rather posting them in Apologetics 301 where they'll likely get ignored, hand-waved, or end up in a never-ending back and forth, I thought I'd post them here so that at least the Christians on the forum can get something out of it.


So this is one that's been coming up quite a bit recently. It pertains to the following passage,

Scripture Verse:

Mark 15:46 Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. (NASB)

© Copyright Original Source

The imagined issue here is that it was illegal to work and to buy or sell goods on Passover per the following passages:

Scripture Verse:

Exodus 12:16 On the first day you shall have a holy assembly, and another holy assembly on the seventh day; no work at all shall be done on them, except what must be eaten by every person, that alone may be prepared by you.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse:

Leviticus 23:6-7 Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work.

© Copyright Original Source

Scripture Verse:

Nehemiah 10:31 As for the peoples of the land who bring wares or any grain on the sabbath day to sell, we will not buy from them on the sabbath or a holy day; and we will forego the crops the seventh year and the exaction of every debt.

© Copyright Original Source

Joseph, who was prominent on the council, would appear to be publicly breaking Jewish law by buying linen on Passover, and he couldn't do it on the Sabbath (which was the next day) either. There appear to be a number of solutions to this issue though. So, starting with NT scholar Harold Hoehner, "The purchases of Joseph of Arimathea were proper for necessities could be obtained on the Sabbath (and on a feast day)." His source for this is Mishnah Shabbath 23.4 "One may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom, to furnish what is necessary for a bride and for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter." "By 'techoom' is meant the distance of 2,000 ells [7,500 feet] which a man may traverse on the Sabbath, and refers to the limits of that distance."

Hoehner also cites Gustaf Dalman's Jesus - Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels (1929), where Dalman points out that these were extenuating circumstances. A criminal who had been hung (crucifixion was a type of hanging) had to be buried by nightfall to prevent the land from being defiled and burial on the Sabbath was likely not permitted. The body couldn't lay out in the hot Judean environment for two days. It had to be buried,

Source: Jesus - Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels by Gustaf Dalman translated by Rev. Paul P. Levertoff

Although Jewish Law, as we have seen, implies the permission to execute on a feast-day (see above), it says nothing concerning the interment on that day; but there can be no doubt that the rule would be that if a person has been hanged on a feast-day, the body must necessarily be also buried on that day, especially when it is followed by a Sabbath. The prohibition not to let the body hang over-night on the wood, and the command to bury it, would in this case, certainly have annulled the prohibition of work on a festival. The fact that there as a ready-made grave near (John xix. 42) made the performance of the interment simpler. A coffin, which even to-day is only used in Palestine for the carrying of the corpse to the grave, was, in the case of a rock grave, still more superfluous. The grave clothes alone could not be done without, since all the clothes of Jesus had been taken away from Him (Mt. xxvii. 59; Mk. xv. 46; Lk. xxiii. 53; John xix. 40).

© Copyright Original Source

Dalman does also suggest that Mark's account may simply be inaccurate, and that he may not have been completely familiar with rules of the Feast day or when the day was terminated, which is obviously an option open to non-inerrantists, but I don't think that's necessary. Hoehner also mentions Strack and Billerbeck's popular multi-volume series Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash). In particular page 832 of volume 2 (1924) which can be found here. My German sucks, and I can't currently afford the English translation, but from what I can make out Billerbeck and Strack mention a number of Talmudic references where buying (or buying by proxy using a handler) on Passover was permitted. In particular they have in mind passages from the Talmudic Tractate Beitza that they call Beça (it took me way too much digging to figure that out). They also mentions a Das, but I don't know what Das is (and no, I don't mean the German word for "that"). Hopefully someone with better fluency in German, or familiarity with the Talmud can chime in.

I'll be continuing my study into this subject, but thought I'd share what I knew so far. Others are more than welcome to share their own knowledge on the subject or cites from other scholars.

[Cow Poke]

[mossrose]

Perhaps, as a follower of Jesus, he understood that some things were necessary, even if it broke the Sabbath or Passover law. Maybe he understood that Christ came to fulfill the law, and that buying a cloth to bury the Lord of the Sabbath took precedence over the law.

Just thinking out loud here, don't really know. I wasn't there.

And, does it matter in the grand scheme of things? After all, it helped to fulfill the prophecy that Christ would be buried among the rich, or words to that effect.

[Obsidian]

1. I don't see why buying an item (or even selling an item) would necessarily even count as work.
2. Regardless, the law clearly allowed certain urgent work to be done on the sabbath.

Luke 14:5-6
And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? And they could not answer him again to these things.

[Adrift]

Perhaps, as a follower of Jesus, he understood that some things were necessary, even if it broke the Sabbath or Passover law. Maybe he understood that Christ came to fulfill the law, and that buying a cloth to bury the Lord of the Sabbath took precedence over the law.

Just thinking out loud here, don't really know. I wasn't there.

An argument could probably be made that everything had to be done by the book in order to fulfill the law. Also, it would seem out of character for a secret disciple of Jesus to brazenly break the law. It seems to me that there was enough risk just asking for Jesus' body from Pilate, though it appears that it was within his legal authority to do so. I think the idea proposed by Dalman, that necessity could sometimes nullify the strict way of doing things, fits in a bit with your and Obsidian's ideas.

And, does it matter in the grand scheme of things? After all, it helped to fulfill the prophecy that Christ would be buried among the rich, or words to that effect.

A good reason to explore these things is to demonstrate to others that the Gospel narrative is built on a very solid and historical foundation.

[mikewhitney]

Joseph, who was prominent on the council, would appear to be publicly breaking Jewish law by buying linen on Passover, and he couldn't do it on the Sabbath (which was the next day) either. There appear to be a number of solutions to this issue though. So, starting with NT scholar Harold Hoehner, "The purchases of Joseph of Arimathea were proper for necessities could be obtained on the Sabbath (and on a feast day)." His source for this is Mishnah Shabbath 23.4 "One may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom, to furnish what is necessary for a bride and for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter." "By 'techoom' is meant the distance of 2,000 ells [7,500 feet] which a man may traverse on the Sabbath, and refers to the limits of that distance."

Much has been argued from the Talmud and Mishnah which were put in written form two centuries after Christ. We cannot rely on specific points presented therein except maybe where the gospels (or earlier Jewish writings) confirm the pattern of thought.

Then we can consider Jesus' remark:

Matt 2:27Then Jesus told them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (from biblehub.com)

Joseph may have been aware of that. But even apart from that (and with the possibility he followed proper exceptions, which you noted earlier), Joseph could have intentionally violated such laws (if we even find any related laws relevant to this time). And the thing also to note is that we don't know which laws were consistently violated or how often such laws were violated. Any of the Jewish laws could have been broken by an individual at any time -- since the laws didn't themselves physically stop people from violating them.

Another thing ... Rabbis may have adjusted their teachings based on the teachings of Christ so as to correct certain of their gravest errors. We can't know this explicitly with the exception that some Jewish laws and traditions are identified within the gospels. The absence of such information in the Talmud may reflect an adjustment to the earlier Rabbinic teachings.

Part of the problem in NT studies seems to be the lack of defining of what was wrong with Jewish pursuit of their laws leading to the time of Christ. Luther's interpretation of 'works of the law' was improperly (or a bit off target) equated with issues rejected within the Roman Catholic Church. And since then, the idea of 'works of the law' has been improperly shifted away from the idea that Jewish traditions had become a problem.

[Cow Poke]

Joseph may have been aware of that...

John referred to Joseph as a 'secret disciple' - it's entirely possible that Joseph had access to teachings or explanations of Jesus that were not written in the gospels. In fact, John mentions twice that his account is pretty limited.

[Adrift]

Much has been argued from the Talmud and Mishnah which were put in written form two centuries after Christ. We cannot rely on specific points presented therein except maybe where the gospels (or earlier Jewish writings) confirm the pattern of thought.

That's true, but many do originate before or contemporaneously with Jesus. In the absence of evidence that might help us understand the historical context better, Talmudic and Mishnaic references offer us a decent baseline to build a reasonable historical hypothesis.

Then we can consider Jesus' remark:


Joseph may have been aware of that. But even apart from that (and with the possibility he followed proper exceptions, which you noted earlier), Joseph could have intentionally violated such laws (if we even find any related laws relevant to this time). And the thing also to note is that we don't know which laws were consistently violated or how often such laws were violated. Any of the Jewish laws could have been broken by an individual at any time -- since the laws didn't themselves physically stop people from violating them.

Mark tells us that Joseph of Arimathea was a respected member of the council. Mark doesn't indicate whether or not Joseph lost that respect after giving up his tomb, but assuming he did not, it again seems out of character to me that he would violate the law that he certainly must have been intimately familiar with and probably helped enforce. We don't really see the disciples of Jesus doing radical things until the resurrection. It seems to me that outside of offering up his own tomb, which I believe was well within his right to do, he probably wanted to keep his head down as not to draw much more attention to himself. But that's just me guessing. I do agree though that we don't know if he actually did break any laws. Certainly he of all people would know how to skirt around them without breaking them. So, for instance, the Talmud tells us that crucified criminals could not be buried honorably, which meant two primary things, no family tomb, and no mourning. It also tells us that the Sanhedrin were responsible for preparing a crucified person's grave, and that once the body decomposed (usually within a year) the family could collect the bones to place in their tomb, but they still could not mourn. Arimathea was in the perfect spot to fulfill all of these legal requirements. As a member of the Sanhedrin, he was responsible for preparing a place for the condemned man, which he did. By burying Jesus in his own tomb rather than Jesus' family tomb he skirts around giving Jesus a technically honorable burial.

Another thing ... Rabbis may have adjusted their teachings based on the teachings of Christ so as to correct certain of their gravest errors. We can't know this explicitly with the exception that some Jewish laws and traditions are identified within the gospels. The absence of such information in the Talmud may reflect an adjustment to the earlier Rabbinic teachings.

Hmm. Perhaps, but he was known to be a secret disciple. You don't think that would give him a way a bit?

Part of the problem in NT studies seems to be the lack of defining of what was wrong with Jewish pursuit of their laws leading to the time of Christ. Luther's interpretation of 'works of the law' was improperly (or a bit off target) equated with issues rejected within the Roman Catholic Church. And since then, the idea of 'works of the law' has been improperly shifted away from the idea that Jewish traditions had become a problem.

I'm not sure what you mean here or how it relates. NT studies are also very broad, and scholars specialize in particular areas so it may just depend on the NT studies one is familiar with.

[mikewhitney]

That's true, but many do originate before or contemporaneously with Jesus. In the absence of evidence that might help us understand the historical context better, Talmudic and Mishnaic references offer us a decent baseline to build a reasonable historical hypothesis.



Mark tells us that Joseph of Arimathea was a respected member of the council. Mark doesn't indicate whether or not Joseph lost that respect after giving up his tomb, but assuming he did not, it again seems out of character to me that he would violate the law that he certainly must have been intimately familiar with and probably helped enforce. We don't really see the disciples of Jesus doing radical things until the resurrection. It seems to me that outside of offering up his own tomb, which I believe was well within his right to do, he probably wanted to keep his head down as not to draw much more attention to himself. But that's just me guessing. I do agree though that we don't know if he actually did break any laws. Certainly he of all people would know how to skirt around them without breaking them. So, for instance, the Talmud tells us that crucified criminals could not be buried honorably, which meant two primary things, no family tomb, and no mourning. It also tells us that the Sanhedrin were responsible for preparing a crucified person's grave, and that once the body decomposed (usually within a year) the family could collect the bones to place in their tomb, but they still could not mourn. Arimathea was in the perfect spot to fulfill all of these legal requirements. As a member of the Sanhedrin, he was responsible for preparing a place for the condemned man, which he did. By burying Jesus in his own tomb rather than Jesus' family tomb he skirts around giving Jesus a technically honorable burial.

Hmm. Perhaps, but he was known to be a secret disciple. You don't think that would give him a way a bit?

I'm not sure what you mean here or how it relates. NT studies are also very broad, and scholars specialize in particular areas so it may just depend on the NT studies one is familiar with.

This last point could seem to be unrelated, at first. The reason I mentioned this is that the laws that Jews were adhering to were often just teachings and traditions of men. These teachings at times were in opposition to the Law of Moses -- the Corban example mentioned of Jesus. As a disciple of Jesus Joseph may have discerned which laws should be followed and which were superficial, based on the teachings of Jesus. But, of course, with the death of the Prophet/Messiah on the cross, Joseph could reasonably see it proper to expose his connection with Jesus. This would be recognition that Jesus is Messiah and deserved proper burial, not matter the effect on Joseph's life or reputation.

None of this is an improbable deviation from Jewish norms when we see that the burial was for their Messiah despite the confusion he, as others had at that time, that the Messiah had been killed. This fact would interfere with the expectations for Jesus to reign as King.

(Oops. I wanted to mention that my NT studies have been focused on Paul and his letters. )

[psstein]

Two issues here:

1. I'm not convinced the Synoptic chronology is correct here- the Johannine chronology may be preferable.

2. The laws are not completely prescriptive, as Dalman correctly points out. Certain extenuating circumstances allow for the law to be broken in Jewish thought. Preventing the defilement of the land would probably fit under that.

[Adrift]

Two issues here:

1. I'm not convinced the Synoptic chronology is correct here- the Johannine chronology may be preferable.

As you're no doubt aware, it doesn't have to be an either/or. There are solutions that account for both the Synoptic and Johannine reading. William Lane Craig offers one that I think carries some weight here.

2. The laws are not completely prescriptive, as Dalman correctly points out. Certain extenuating circumstances allow for the law to be broken in Jewish thought. Preventing the defilement of the land would probably fit under that.

[Sparko]

if you couldn't work during the passover, how did the Sanhedron meet to condemn Jesus? Wasn't that work?

[Adrift]

if you couldn't work during the passover, how did the Sanhedron meet to condemn Jesus? Wasn't that work?

Well, it's commonly argued that the trial was illegal, and skeptics often use the fact it would have been illegal as another reason to doubt the Gospel narrative. I'd like to explore that in a future thread.

[Obsidian]

I already quoted from Jesus where he specifically says that even his opponents allowed for certain work to be done on the sabbath. We don't have to look at any extrabiblical sources. It's right there in the Bible. This whole thread is a non-issue.

[Sparko]

so was the actual passover on thursday or friday? because they ate the passover on thursday and Jesus was crucified and died on friday.
According to your quote of:
Exodus 12:16 On the first day you shall have a holy assembly, and another holy assembly on the seventh day; no work at all shall be done on them, except what must be eaten by every person, that alone may be prepared by you.

it seems like only on the first and seventh day are you not to work.

edit: never mind I forgot about the Jewish day being from sundown to sundown.