Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

What did Jesus wear when soldiers mocked him?


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#46    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,944 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:01 PM

I just have to wonder if Jesus was mocked.
I wonder if Jesus that we think of today was actually a combination of people.
I wonder if Jesus actually died on the cross.
I wonder if he went on to live in a Roman complex where he amassed a large cult of people.
I seriously wonder about what was SAID at the sermon on the mound.
I do not wonder about what the legend of Jesus wore.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#47    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,157 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 18 October 2012 - 08:45 PM

reggie

Quote

I just have to wonder if Jesus was mocked... I do not wonder about what the legend of Jesus wore.

But other people connect the two. A genuine purple garment, Tyrean purple, as might be inferred from Mark or John, would have been fabulously expensive, and not plausibly used to drape a bloodied, pus-oozing scourged prisoner. Similarly, no soldier would plausibly lend his robe (Matthew) to be placed on such a person for a practical joke.

The credibility of the account and the detail of what he was draped with go hand in hand.

Tiggs

Celsus and Origen seem to me to be describing two different aspects of the problems of manual transmission of text. Systematic rewriting was a fact. Marcion did it to Luke, and Celsus would know that. The sloppy casual kind of treatment Origen refers to reflects the limitations of volunteers, and even human performance as such, since professional scribes also screwed up.

If we're working with texts, then the hope is that we can sort out what happened. So, we don't think for a moment that Marcion's gospel is the definitive text of Luke. Much of the more casual noise can be ironed out. We think.

There would be no reason I can thinkof why Matthew would be the target of scribal hodge-podgery after the fact, while the other Gospels retained their impression of single-mindedness. Could be, but I don't see it.

I also don't see the virgin birth thing as a late addition candidate. Luke comes after Matthew, but not by a lot. Luke is our witness to a "miracle birth" tradition for John the Baptist, in a very traditional Jewish-scriptural style, the older childless woman shall conceive. He then sets up a nice parallel for Jesus, with the supervision of the Holy Spirit, and a really nice fulfillment of what Isaiah actually says, that a young woman will conceive.

A redactor of Matthew could have his prophecy, and his realism as to what happens on planet Earth... to say nothing of the full humanity of Jesus ('cept for Adam, all of us have a man for a father), and God right there working his unseen magic - simply by sticking an echo of Luke into whatever version of Matthew the scribe was embellishing. But no.

So, I think Luke was written in reaction to an already fully realized Matthew fiasco. I don't think anybody would pen the fiasco after an elegant solution like Luke's had been presented.

Posted Image

#48    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,076 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 19 October 2012 - 02:47 PM

View Posteight bits, on 18 October 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

Celsus and Origen seem to me to be describing two different aspects of the problems of manual transmission of text. Systematic rewriting was a fact. Marcion did it to Luke, and Celsus would know that. The sloppy casual kind of treatment Origen refers to reflects the limitations of volunteers, and even human performance as such, since professional scribes also screwed up.

Professional scribes do screw up, but there's a marked difference between a professional copy error and plain making stuff up.

Some of the ancient writers knew enough about the perils of replication error to ensure that the stories they passed down from generation to generation had their own form of error transmission checking built in. Mark, for example, uses a Chiastic structure within his gospel, which makes it easier to spot where changes to the text have been made.

Matthew, which includes almost the entirety of Mark, breaks the Chiastic structure within the Mark text at points where strong criticism is made of the Torah and Jesus' own family.

As such - I strongly suspect that Matthew is a version of Mark altered for a Jewish audience and later extended.


Quote

If we're working with texts, then the hope is that we can sort out what happened. So, we don't think for a moment that Marcion's gospel is the definitive text of Luke.

Why ever not? Perhaps you should try and see where that leads you.

As it would happen - there are a small minority of textual critics who do believe that Luke's Gospel, as well as Acts, was written as a response to Marcion's Gospel - a position which has been strengthened by recent computer textual analysis which strongly suggests that Luke and Acts were actually written by different authors.


Quote

There would be no reason I can thinkof why Matthew would be the target of scribal hodge-podgery after the fact, while the other Gospels retained their impression of single-mindedness. Could be, but I don't see it.

That's interesting, as I think that all of the Gospels had at least a little after the fact hodge-podgery (there's that additional ending of Mark that accidently wrote itself, for example) - though Matthew's probably had the most, in my opinion.


Quote

I also don't see the virgin birth thing as a late addition candidate. Luke comes after Matthew, but not by a lot. Luke is our witness to a "miracle birth" tradition for John the Baptist, in a very traditional Jewish-scriptural style, the older childless woman shall conceive. He then sets up a nice parallel for Jesus, with the supervision of the Holy Spirit, and a really nice fulfillment of what Isaiah actually says, that a young woman will conceive.

A redactor of Matthew could have his prophecy, and his realism as to what happens on planet Earth... to say nothing of the full humanity of Jesus ('cept for Adam, all of us have a man for a father), and God right there working his unseen magic - simply by sticking an echo of Luke into whatever version of Matthew the scribe was embellishing. But no.

So, I think Luke was written in reaction to an already fully realized Matthew fiasco. I don't think anybody would pen the fiasco after an elegant solution like Luke's had been presented.

I suspect that the virgin birth "solution" sprang up separately in two different communities; not that one was a redo of another, per se. The easiest place to make an addition to a piece of written text is either at the start, or at it's end.

Helping with that suspicion - Iraneus reports that the Ebionites using an early version of Matthew, claimed no belief in the virgin birth, and instead. that the spirit of God had descended Dove-like to Jesus on his Baptism - which is all very, very Mark-like.

As ever, though - there are very few Iron-clad definites in all of this. While I find it interesting to wander off the beaten track and explore the possibilities (and hopefully, give you a couple of new angles to investigate from), I don't for a second believe that it's possible for any of us to actually know with any measure of real certainty what really happened, given the level of evidence currently available.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#49    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,157 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:43 PM

Tiggs

Quote

As ever, though - there are very few Iron-clad definites in all of this. While I find it interesting to wander off the beaten track and explore the possibilities (and hopefully, give you a couple of new angles to investigate from), I don't for a second believe that it's possible for any of us to actually know with any measure of real certainty what really happened, given the level of evidence currently available.

Yes, we all do what we can with a thin evidentiary soup. There is no question I am a somewhat complacent unbeliever, and so it is good for me to butt up against some more radical notions.

The Waite-Knox proposal about a post-Marcion Luke-Acts has few active proponents. I am aware of Joseph B. Tyson's idea of a peri-Marcion Luke, maybe 125 CE, but that's not quite Waite-Knox. Anyway, here's a favorable review by somebody who thinks Tyson wussed out from Knox, but was basically right

http://www.robertmpr...son_marcion.htm

Also, assuming that the computer authorship analysis you're speaking of is the "small words" kind of thing (pioneered for an analysis of the anonymous American Federalist Papers in the last century), Luke-Acts isn't so much authored as it is assembled. It doesn't actually claim to be truly singly authored in the first place. Luke may well have transcribed his sources into a tastefully ordered stream, which wasn't an unprecedented approach to history writing at the time. The particular kind of analysis I'm thinking of simply wouldn't work on such volumes.

I've never bought the "Matthew was written for a Jewish audience" idea. For one thing, you'd think if it was written for a Jewish audience, it would get the Jewish things right - like almah in the virgin birth unprophecy. Contrast it with its possible rough contemporary, Hebrews, which is a much higher quality Jewish-oriented exposition of the Christian case, and which might plausibly have been directed to a Hellenistic-Jewish audience.

Posted Image

#50    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,076 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:30 PM

View Posteight bits, on 19 October 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Yes, we all do what we can with a thin evidentiary soup. There is no question I am a somewhat complacent unbeliever, and so it is good for me to butt up against some more radical notions.

The Waite-Knox proposal about a post-Marcion Luke-Acts has few active proponents. I am aware of Joseph B. Tyson's idea of a peri-Marcion Luke, maybe 125 CE, but that's not quite Waite-Knox. Anyway, here's a favorable review by somebody who thinks Tyson wussed out from Knox, but was basically right

http://www.robertmpr...son_marcion.htm

Unsurprisingly, I agree with Mr Price on most things.


Quote

Also, assuming that the computer authorship analysis you're speaking of is the "small words" kind of thing (pioneered for an analysis of the anonymous American Federalist Papers in the last century), Luke-Acts isn't so much authored as it is assembled. It doesn't actually claim to be truly singly authored in the first place. Luke may well have transcribed his sources into a tastefully ordered stream, which wasn't an unprecedented approach to history writing at the time. The particular kind of analysis I'm thinking of simply wouldn't work on such volumes.

You're correct. It wouldn't. Which is why the analysis is run, instead, on the seams and summaries rather than the book as a whole. As for the methodology - I believe it uses a Chi-Square Contingency Table Test - which, other than being some sort of method to measure the correlation between two things, is completely over my head.


Quote

I've never bought the "Matthew was written for a Jewish audience" idea. For one thing, you'd think if it was written for a Jewish audience, it would get the Jewish things right - like almah in the virgin birth unprophecy. Contrast it with its possible rough contemporary, Hebrews, which is a much higher quality Jewish-oriented exposition of the Christian case, and which might plausibly have been directed to a Hellenistic-Jewish audience.

Fair enough. I don't really run into that particular issue, due to my position that the birth was a later addition.


"What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?" - Tiggs vs PA - Did Jesus Really exist? - The Formal Debate:
HERE
Posted Image


#51    spud the mackem

spud the mackem

    Spud the Mackem

  • Member
  • 3,431 posts
  • Joined:28 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yeo Valley,Darkest Somerset.

  • man who ask for nothing shall never be disappointed

Posted 19 October 2012 - 09:31 PM

Well I guess he wasn't wearing his best "funeral" black suit,and black tie. He probably wore the prison clothes of that period,or just his ordinary work gear.Whatever he wore or didnt wear they still murdered him.

(1) try your best, ............if that dont work.
(2) try your second best, ........if that dont work
(3) give up you aint gonna win

#52    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,157 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 20 October 2012 - 08:23 AM

Tiggs

That was interesting. I was able to get hold of the book and take a look. I haven't read it through, and don't intend to wiggle onto the hook for or against the single-author hypothesis.

Quote

Which is why the analysis is run, instead, on the seams and summaries rather than the book as a whole. As for the methodology - I believe it uses a Chi-Square Contingency Table Test - which, other than being some sort of method to measure the correlation between two things, is completely over my head.

The good news is that the authors' use of the chi-square test is straightforward. Are the two samples (selections from Luke and selections from Acts) drawn from the same text-generating distribution? Not likely, apparently. OK, let's just take that as given. [/statistics]

If one author wrote both, would I expect the two samples to be from the same distribution? That's not a statisitcal question, it's a modeling problem: how or how much does author-editorship influence what's in the two samples? Apart from a difference in personnel, differences in the samples could result from the features used (are these things that "should be" constant for a given author?), how I drew the samples, and ways that the same compiler could behave differently (writing in different genres, or writing at different times in his life, for example).

Just quickly, then, Walters seems vulnerable on her choice of features and how she drew the sample, her "seams and summaries." Yes, that selection scheme picks out material that was likely written by the author-editor, but it also picks out material written for local purposes. Why wouldn't literary choices made to join two passages, written by somebody(-ies) else, depend on the specific passages being joined? Why wouldn't literary choices made in a summary of passages, written by somebody(-ies) else, depend on the specific passages being summarized?

I don't have an answer, and getting an answer would be a lot more work than reading the whole book carefully, and I haven't even done that. But it isn't a slam-dunk, and reading more of the book with more care is likely to make that worse before it gets better.

Quite apart from any debate surrounding the book, I believe that while "Luke" may have approached both books as a single genre (broadly history), "Gospel" may also be a genre in its own right, in a way that an ecclesiastical history isn't quite the same. I also think that there is a "reconciliation of familiar sources" problem that is more urgent in the Gospel than in the church history. Speaking third is a different situation than speaking first -  especially if the "second speaker" was Matthew of the two asses.

So, since I'm not on the hook for single-authorship, let me leave this analysis, for now at least, as being interesting, even mind-expanding, but still disputable.

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users