Skeptics often claim that we see legendary development and narrative progression within the four Gospels. They’re typically ordered from Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John — which, they argue, undermines the confidence we have that the authors are committed to recording truth.
This argument is based on Markan priority, which most scholars accept, and also a certain dating of each Gospel, in particular Matthew and Luke. It’s important to note that this position is contestable, and if their assumptions about dating are not right, it would potentially undermine their arguments.
But there are two bigger questions to ask that we will address through this analysis:
Is there substantive legendary development within the four Gospels?
Why does each Gospel tell us what they tell us about Joseph?
QUESTION #1: Is There Legendary Development in the Gospels?
As far as legendary development, it strikes me as a lot less than what skeptics assume.. Let’s look at Joseph of Arimathea across the four Gospel:
In Mark, we have Joseph’s name, where he’s from, and information about his background. We know that he’s a respected member of the council who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God.
Let’s consider Matthew next – we’re given the detail that Joseph is not only from Arimathea, but is also called a disciple of Jesus. Now, it’s true that Mark doesn’t call him a disciple. But Mark says he’s looking for the kingdom of God, and he’s willing to go bury Jesus himself, so it doesn’t seem like a big jump to him actually being a disciple.
Now we get to Luke. Luke says there’s a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. Both details were already given in Mark and Matthew. He was a member of the council again, as in Mark. But now Luke adds that he’s a good and righteous man who had not consented to their decision and action.
Joseph being a “righteous man” is new information and we’re going to come back to why Luke refers to him as good and righteous. But if you think about Mark and Matthew — they say he’s anticipating the kingdom of God, he’s a disciple of Jesus, and then he’s the one who buries Jesus. Therefore, it’s not a big jump to also include that he had not consented to their decision and action to crucify Jesus — minimal development.
Additionally, Luke says in the prologue to his Gospel (Lk. 1:1-4) that many others have undertaken to write an account of the events surrounding Jesus.. Luke, as a careful historian, has read earlier accounts, includes some of the details, then adds additional details not included in the other Gospels. And one is that Joseph had not consented to the decision and action. That makes sense and flows from what we already know in Mark and Matthew.
Then we get to John. One new detail we get is that Joseph was a secret disciple, for fear of the Jews. This is new information, but again, if he is part of the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus, should we be surprised that Joseph is a secret disciple and not vocal about it?
Let’s consider our second question:
Why Does Each Gospel Tell Us What It Tells Us About Joseph?
Let’s start with Luke. Why does Luke introduce the idea that Joseph of Arimathea was a good and righteous man? The reason is that the Gospel of Luke is focused on the righteousness that follows from faith..
Zechariah is told that his son John the Baptist would go before the Lord and bring them an understanding of the righteous. In Luke 3, John tells the crowds to produce fruit, consistent with again — righteousness. Interestingly, we also have the character of Simeon, who’s told he would see the Messiah, who’s described as a good and righteous man.
It actually makes perfect sense, within the theology of the Gospel of Luke, that Luke would describe Joseph of Arimathea as a good and righteous man, because that’s one of the designations of somebody who is a disciple and a follower of Jesus.
Why does John call Joseph a secret disciple? I think the answer is when we look more broadly at the theme of John, which is about the question of what is a true and genuine witness to Christ. There are roughly three kinds of witnesses in John.
First, there are those who boldly proclaim Christ and are held up as models. This would be John the Baptist (John 1), the woman at the well (John 4), and the blind man (John 9). Second, there are also those who reject the testimony of Jesus and do not testify to His works, such as the healed paralytic in John 5, who goes and tells the religious leaders on him.
Third, there’s also those who believe and are disciples, but not yet public about their faith. We see this in Nicodemus (John 3). He recognizes that Jesus is a teacher. Of course, he’s involved in the burial of Jesus (John 19). The author of John draws attention to this kind of follower in If 12:42–43. It says that many did believe in him, even among the rulers, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, because they loved human praise more than the praise of God.
The best explanation for why John reports that Joseph was a secret disciple is because he believed in Jesus, he recognized who he was, but had not yet gone public fully in the way that Jesus would want him to – he’s in process. He’s learning and he’s developing and counting the cost. So it makes perfect sense that John would describe Joseph as a secret disciple even if other earlier Gospels did not.
Is this legendary Development or Something Else?
When you hear claims by skeptics that there’s legendary development, the best thing is to go straight to the source and read it within its literary and theological context. I think we’ve seen in this case that, specifically as it comes to Luke and John, the details that they introduce make sense in light of the theology of those Gospels. They evince more consistency with each of those Gospels than the kind of legendary development skeptics often claim.