Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
94naked body to its destination. And we have to regard them as either forgetting to
close the door of the old tomb, or not wishing for the moment to waste time by
doing so.
Let us try to see the full forc e and weight of this partic ular rec onstruc tion of
the sc ene. I c an imagine someone saying:
‘Are we not here on the trac k of reality? Granted that dawn would have been
the ideal t ime for this operation, but events may have determined otherwise. News
flies quic kly in proximit y t o a great nat ional high road and Joseph may have feared
that a task requiring at least two hours for its accomplishment might draw a large
and dangerous crowd if undertaken after sunrise. May it not be that he really did
c arry out the prelimina ries under c over of darkness and that when Mary Magdalene
and her party arrived at the tomb, the party had already left for the locality of the
permanent burial-plac e?’
T his view of the matter possesses in a remarkable degree the required
c onsistenc y with the rec ords. It explains the surprise of the women on finding the
great stone rolled away. It accounts for the tomb being discovered to be vacant. It
agrees profoundly with Mary Magdalene’s breathless message to the two disciples:
‘They have taken away the Lord, and we know not where they have laid him!’ If
there were no other conditions to be satisfied, this would be the supremely
c onvinc ing and naturalistic explanation. But again no theory, however plausible and
c onvinc ing at first sight, c an stand alone. It must fit the big fac ts of the situation as
well as t he lit t le. And it is wit h t he big fac t s t hat no c onc eivable adjust ment seems
to be possible.
There are two ways of regarding Joseph of Arimathea c onsistently with the
narratives. Either he was:
(a) A secret follower or disciple of Jesus who seriously desired to perform
openly this service to one whose leadership he had hesitated to acknowledge during
life; or
(b) A pious member of the Sanhedrin who was only c onc erned with the
fulfilment of the Jewish Law whic h enjoined burial of the c ruc ified prisoner before
sunset.
A great deal has been made of the second possibility, chiefly by those who are
anxious to show c ause for Joseph’s supposed reluc tanc e to allow the body of Jesus
to remain in his own tomb. It seems to me, however, that there is one insuperable
diffic ulty in the way of its ac c eptance. The Jewish Law whic h enjoined burial before
sunset applied equally t o t he two thieves, and there is no suggestion that Joseph
oc c upied himself with or even gave a thought to the remains of these two men.
Now t his is remarkable, bec ause all t hree c ases, involving as t hey did t he c apit al
sentenc e, c ame within the Roman jurisdic tion. It was quite as necessary to obtain
Pilate’s permission in the case of the two thieves as it was in that of Jesus. No
doubt the Priests did later obtain official authority to deal with these two men, and
their bodies were probably cast into the common grave, but this was clearly after
Joseph of Arimathea had made his own personal and independent request. The fac t
that Joseph did make this isolated application to Pilate shows that he was not