51 replies to this topic

[Diablo Blanco]

Master of Puppets t-shirt

Edited by Hazrus, 11 October 2012 - 05:19 AM.

[Abramelin]

Ron Jeremy, on 19 September 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

I guess he was completely naked. And probably he was raped by Roman soldiers. Maybe I should stop watching Spartacus on Starz....

He must have been wearing a tutu.

[Tiggs]

eight bits, on 10 October 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

I've seen that on Carrier's site. My own view is that both Mark and John were written with the intention of being read as literally truthful, and (at least in major part in the case of John) as the first writing of some tradition which the author considers truthful.

I think all of the gospels were written with the intention of being read as literally truthful.

Quote

So, making up visibly fanciful place names for a functional character's home is inconsistent with what I think was the goal. There is the possibility that the place name was in an earlier source, the Passion Narrative. I am not sure why that hypothetical source would be punning, either.

If it was a pun, then I don't think Mark would have gotten it. And it's still there in John, whose author definitiely would have gotten it, wasn't shy about disputing details in the synoptics, and didn't really need the J of A character, since Nicodemus could have arragnged a hasty entombment, or the author could have kept the Joseph part and lost the suspect place name.

If it's not an actual place name - then, rather than a pun, my best guess would be that it was being used as a memory-hook, in order to aid oral transmission of the story, and it's usage as such was lost over time prior to it being written down.

[Dying Seraph]

eight bits, on 10 October 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Speaking of Carrier's site, as Tiggs did, another related theory I read there on the same page (I think this one)

http://www.infidels..../rebuttal1.html

was that Jesus was entombed by opponents, for various reasons, and then the Passion Narrative kept the incident, but changed the J of A character's "real affiliation." It could be, although in that case, J of A would have had a "cover story" for entombing Jesus, and so would not have been outed as a supporter, nor would his act have been "courageous" (Mark).

Greetings 8 Bits,
Yet another aspect to look into. Thank you.

Quote

The crucifixion was a public event, and Jesus' mother, other women and the Beloved disciple are all right there in one account or another. The Psalm 22 recitation specifically is witnessed by non-partisans (who misunderstand what they hear... but maybe converted later and realized their mistake). So, I am not too worried about that as a potentially witnessed event.

Indeed the crucifixion was a public spectacle. But many things don't add up to me as mundane as they are. My main concern, Mark implies that Roman soldiers were practically at the foot of the cross or nearby. Jesus is said to have screamed out many things (indeed likely missunderstood). So if the soldiers don't understand, "My God why have you forsaken me" etc., how would a random death of yet another criminal he can't understand, lead the Centurion to say "surley he was the son of God?" That is a damn mighty bold statement. Admittedly I suspect some imbellishing on the authors part not to mock the Romans. But if the author can convince the audience that a Roman believes this man to believe Jesus as son of God, then it adds authority to the whole matter. And likely also why we get all these later Romantic tales of a deeply saddened-redeemed, believer in Pilate. Aside from the fact that he's a great character to play as you mentioned before. And the other is this issue with the earth trembling and an eclipse happening. In some history souces, it seems that something happened around that time (bearing in mind that Judea frequently had earthquakes and the earth bubbled up and reeked) and that an eclipse is feasible to have happened. But one can't help but believe that that was added and intertwined with Jesus on the cross in an attempt to add further authority to Jesus as a savior. Again certainly mundane but certainly suspicious IMO.

Quote

I like Longinus. I share your concerns about the whole spear in the side thing, but the soldiers in the execution detail must have done something to confirm that Jesus was dead (else the Centurion, whatever his name was, wouldn't have been so quick to answer Pilate's question). But you are right, Longinus is a legendary soldier-witness-convert, and would have been a plausible participant in the earlier mockery if he was real.

His defect as a witness, though, is that he shows up late and hard to date (Acts of Pilate is 150-400 on Early Chrisitan Writing's list). So, I have the same problem as before with any Roman soldier witness: a real execution detail convert would be a big deal at the time, especially in a movement that isn't looking for Gentile converts. Plus, the Gospels are all written before Longinus comes into his own. It sounds a lot more like the Gospels were a witness for some rudimentary version of him, rather than the other way around

Indeed we appear to be on the same page in regards to the Centurion as viable witnesses be it Longtinus or Cornelius. I must confess after looking into this more and more, am still convinced that Pilate is the "chief witness." And we certainly can only speculate on what Pilate had in mind but the later these gospels are written it certainly appears that Pilate IMO is the "chief withness".
1. At the trial Pilate declares Jesus as King.
2. Pilate futher devlares Jesus King on the cross.
3. The gospels have Pilate recounting Jesus wonders himself. (all the more interesting since it appears Jesus says so little at the trial)
4. Pilate himself appears to have been a relic hunter/seeker (magic coat etc.)
5. He [Pilate] himself wanted not only to know of the death of Jesus but also had it handled elaborately considering the charge of sedition.. (ie instead of standard practice for a criminal of his sentence it was hastened and done with care)
6. And then of course later in John and Acts of Pilate etc. Pilate realizes the divinity in God.
The Centurion business...the statement concerns me "surely he is the son of God." And if he did believe this, how would he make such a report to Pilate the man who just killed "the son of God?"

That Cornelius pops up in Acts is interesting. The author conveys that Cornelius was a Captain in the "Itallian" regiment. This would've indeed put him with Pilate in Jerusalem during the Crucifixion. And certainly possible if so that Cornilius and Pilate were colleauges. Anyway as it goes the authors suggests Cornilius contact Peter and we get this odd sermon from Peter where he assumes that everyone, Jew or Gentile "knows" what his message is.
"You know the message of God to the people of Israel, the good news of jesus Christ. ...We are witness to everything that he did in the land of Israel and in Jerusalem."  --Just found the bold interesting since your topic pertains to a "witness." In this instance it's Peter saying it.

SINcerely,

Edited by Dying Seraph, 11 October 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[eight bits]

Tiggs

Quote

I think all of the gospels were written with the intention of being read as literally truthful.

Personally, I doubt that Matthew was.

Quote

... used as a memory-hook, in order to aid oral transmission of the story, and it's usage as such was lost over time prior to it being written down.

That could well be. Traditionally, the Marcan author is a literate associate of an illiterate Apostle (Peter is the usual suspect), and unlike the Apostle, the recorder is not necessarily familiar with Judean geography. It could be as simple as that, then, a mistranscription of an unfamiliar place name heard once (since J of A is not otherwise in the story).

DS

Quote

lead the Centurion to say "surley he was the son of God?"

In Mark, there have been, as you say, three hours of darkness, and as Jesus breathes his last, something happens in the temple (maybe an earth tremor?). Otherwise, Jesus is silent except for the Psalm 22 and his final loud cry. Without the benefit of drugs, he "dies well."

Now, being a Roman soldier, the Centurion might actually have said "Truly, he was a son of a god." Quidem filius dei erat (?) perhaps comparing Jesus' stoic manner of facing a painful death to Hercules', rather than being the first to articulate Nicene doctrine.

So, maybe the remark is less bold for the speaker than for its effect on the pious listener.

As to the sun and the tremor, it's hard to say, because long term memory does that sort of thing without any "intention to deceive." There was a year in the 30's that had both a solar eclipse visible around noon from Jerusalem and a lunar eclispe in the same spring month... long term memory could move Jesus' death to that year, and switch the two eclipses, so that the solar eclipse happened mid-month (which cannot be physically).

OK, You like Pilate for the witness. He would be the coolest one, if it were him .

[King Fluffs]

Imaginarynumber1, on 19 September 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Leopard print thong?

It was pink.
Believe me, I was their.

[Imaginarynumber1]

King Fluffs, on 12 October 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

It was pink.
Believe me, I was their.

You were their what?
Oh.. you mean you were 'there'.

I'll bet he was uncomfortable walking around a bunch of dudes while wearing just a thong... or maybe not...

[Beckys_Mom]

King Fluffs, on 12 October 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

It was pink.
Believe me, I was their.

You were their towel boy

[Dying Seraph]

eight bits, on 12 October 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

....

OK, You like Pilate for the witness. He would be the coolest one, if it were him .

Greetings 8 Bits,
Was I that obvious?     I just love the idea because of how how absurdly fantastic it would be if indeed it was him.
While he makes the most sense to me, is there anyone you have in mind? Or do you "keep the canvas clean" or open?

SINcerely,

[Harlequin Dreamer]

I'm just going overboard hear a shot in the dark a little bit of personal thought but I would have to say the CLOTHES of that period in time.

[King Fluffs]

Beckys_Mom, on 12 October 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

You were their towel boy

I was.

[Tiggs]

eight bits, on 12 October 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

Personally, I doubt that Matthew was.

That's interesting. What's pointing you in that direction?

[eight bits]

Quote

That's interesting. What's pointing you in that direction?

Matthew seems to me to be a hodge-podge of things people may have said about Jesus. To the extent that there is any selectivity, it might be something like conformity to the author's (shaky) understanding of Hebrew Bible "prophecy," rather than any critical judgment about whether each and every story is true or not.

The writing plan, then, seems to be like in the American idiom "If you throw enough mud at a wall, then some of it will stick." You really don't expect that every mud pie will be believed, but rather that some cumulative effect sets in - it can't all be wrong, so the reader adopts the mudslinger's cause as their own.

There doesn't seem to be much problem in very early Chrisitanity that I might believe something different from the next fellow - unless it's a biggie, like whether we can have pork chops at the church picnic. So, Matthew doesn't need my detailed assent, just a general agreement to sign on. He isn't recruiting me to a modern Protestant church, but rather to an ancient fan club.

I also find the comparison between Luke and Matthew interesting when they tell the same far-fetched tale. Let's go with the virgin birth.

If all we had was Luke (and without Matthew, maybe Luke wouldn't have delved into the subject at all, but suppose he had), then look at the conversation between Gabriel and Mary. He could just as easily be encouraging her to sleep with Joseph, God won't mind if the marriage certificate is backdated a bit, as preparing her for motherhood without sex. The action shifts to the birth of John, Mary goes home, and then shows up again, betrothed and at full term, without a word about the domestic arrangements during the interim.

That, I think, could be believed, and if somebody wanted to read more into it, then that wouldn't be Luke's problem. What Matthew reports isn't credible. It's something he heard somewhere, and it suits his purpose, so he passes it along, aiming for a cumulative effect, perhaps the cadence of "the prophecy was fulfilled," without too much attention to any one prophecy or to its supposed fulfillment. That's my opinion, anyway.

[Alienated Being]

He wore his heart on his sleeve.

[Tiggs]

eight bits, on 18 October 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Matthew seems to me to be a hodge-podge of things people may have said about Jesus. To the extent that there is any selectivity, it might be something like conformity to the author's (shaky) understanding of Hebrew Bible "prophecy," rather than any critical judgment about whether each and every story is true or not.

The writing plan, then, seems to be like in the American idiom "If you throw enough mud at a wall, then some of it will stick." You really don't expect that every mud pie will be believed, but rather that some cumulative effect sets in - it can't all be wrong, so the reader adopts the mudslinger's cause as their own.

If you take the version of Matthew today as coming from the hand of a single author - then I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. I don't believe it was, however.

I think Matthew's been through a few "revisions". Not least of which was the entire later addition of the Virgin Birth Narrative.

In short - I think Matthew's a prime example of what Celsus described as:

"some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism."

Or if you prefer the other side of the fence - the early Church Father Origen:

"The differences among the manuscripts have become great either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please".