Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
eight bits

What did Jesus wear when soldiers mocked him?

52 posts in this topic

The idea that Pilate would come around is intriguing, of course. Maybe. There are traditions to that effect. If he were a major Passion witness, though, you'd also need some additional story about how he met up with the author of Mark, of all people, or somebody earlier who might have written a "pre-Gospel" Passion narrative.

An issue that does arise though is that didn't Pilate wish to be informed when the act/death was carried out? Mark suggests that it wasn't a soldier at all that went to Pilate but Joseph being first to notify Pilate,...

Pilate wasn't said to monitor the situation, but he was surprised that Jesus had died so quickly. That is a problem, since the two theives survived Jesus by only a few minutes after their legs were broken. That was the plan, you'd think, not to provoke an incident by leaving Jewish corpses on the crosses through Passover. Anyway, once Joseph tells him, Pilate then checks with the soldier, which is the first interest Pilate shows in the execution itself. (And um, doesn't the availability of the soldier in itself tell Pilate that the detail has finished its mission?)

Joseph of Arimathea is tricky. He just suddenly pops into the tale, happens to have an idle tomb all ready to go, gives Jesus an honorable burial, and then completely and utterly recedes into the mists again. The alleged central event in human history occurs in his little slice of rocky real estate hours later, and he has nothing to say about it? And somehow either he doesn't notice that his tomb is empty again ahead of schedule, or he notices, but he's back in secret mode, so he doesn't tell the Sanhedrin that there seems to be a problem with the Jesus conviction.

Speaking of real estate, where in hell is Arimathea? Judea, but where in Judea? The Gospels are the only surviving occurrence of the place name.

John, the best writer of the four canonicals, establishes Nicodemus early in his narrative, so it's less of a shock when Nicodemus returns to help entomb Jesus. Nicodemus also provides some "political cover" for Joseph, making a powerful if tiny clique, rather than a lone secret admirer.

But as you say, Joseph's secret support is suddenly secret no longer. He wouldn't step up to help the living Jesus, but risks it all for the dead Jesus, and then dummies up about the resurrected Jesus. That's a severe plot problem. I don't have a resolution for it.

So, my main difficulty with Joseph as the witness is that I'm unpersuaded that he exists. Or if there was somebody real behind the Joseph cardboard cutout, then we have not been told his story straight, IMO.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of real estate, where in hell is Arimathea? Judea, but where in Judea? The Gospels are the only surviving occurrence of the place name.

Arimathea is potentially a Greek Pun, according to Richard Carrier, who thinks that Ari is a common prefix for "Best" and Matheia translates to "Disciple".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus can wear whatever he wants. He's Jesus for Christ's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Pilate wasn't said to monitor the situation, but he was surprised that Jesus had died so quickly. That is a problem, since the two theives survived Jesus by only a few minutes after their legs were broken. That was the plan, you'd think, not to provoke an incident by leaving Jewish corpses on the crosses through Passover. Anyway, once Joseph tells him, Pilate then checks with the soldier, which is the first interest Pilate shows in the execution itself. (And um, doesn't the availability of the soldier in itself tell Pilate that the detail has finished its mission?)

Greetings 8 Bits,

Indeed that has been puzzling. On the one hand for common practice the Romans would usually either leave the crucified individuals to be eaten by vultures or on the other would be heaped into mass graves. So would Pilate appease the Jews because of sacred holiday? Certainly seems feasible. But then why be so shocked at how fast the death came? Certainly does seem to convey a bit of indifference to me.

This has been most puzzling this whole Centurion business. We have Jesus shouting out various things. "My God why have you forsaken me" etc. Who recorded that? Surely a Roman Centurion reporting to Pilate wouldn't understand Jesus shouting in Aramaic right? And it seems doubtful other Roman footsoldiers would as well so who is recording what Jesus said on the cross?

How would they know when Jesus died? The Centurion reports at the 9th hour, however there's also this issue with the world shaking and eclipse business?

But as you say, Joseph's secret support is suddenly secret no longer. He wouldn't step up to help the living Jesus, but risks it all for the dead Jesus, and then dummies up about the resurrected Jesus. That's a severe plot problem. I don't have a resolution for it.

So, my main difficulty with Joseph as the witness is that I'm unpersuaded that he exists. Or if there was somebody real behind the Joseph cardboard cutout, then we have not been told his story straight, IMO.

Nor am I convinced Joseph was a real individual either. However seems more entertaining then Nicodemus IMO, and that Joseph would have to force himself into an unclean place to ask for the body of a criminal makes it all the more intriguing. :sm Just for the heck of it since we're throwing out witnesses, figure even though he shows up late to the party he'd get an honorable mention. In Acti Pilatus we get the name of the Centurion in John that pierces the side of Jesus, Longinus. Not that it really matters because I doubt even if there was an individual that pierced the side of Christ, or Cornelius or any other soldier for that matter would know what the heck Jesus is screaming. But it would be nice if the author of Mark, concerned with at least getting a few facts would've attempted to record who said what.

SINcerely,

:devil:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy, Tiggs

Arimathea is potentially a Greek Pun, according to Richard Carrier, who thinks that Ari is a common prefix for "Best" and Matheia translates to "Disciple".

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.

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.

The pun case could be bolstered with the parallel "Bar Abbas," the son of the father, which also might derive from the Passion Narrative, suggesting it was a punny work. I have been thinking about the Bar Abbas matter lately, because of Dying Seraph's remarks. "Son of the Father" is blasphemous only if the meaning is that the man has no earthly father. But it could mean somebody especially faithful, and is a plausible nickname for a Jewish rebel.

I have no affirmative explanation to offer for Arimathea, but I don't accept the pun theory for the reasons stated.

Howdy, DS

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.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/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).

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.

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Master of Puppets t-shirt

Edited by Hazrus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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. :D

SINcerely,

:devil:

Edited by Dying Seraph
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiggs

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

Personally, I doubt that Matthew was.

... 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

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 :) .

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leopard print thong?

It was pink.

Believe me, I was their.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was pink.

Believe me, I was their.

You were their towel boy

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

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

Greetings 8 Bits,

Was I that obvious? :blush::whistle::innocent: 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,

:devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were their towel boy

I was. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I doubt that Matthew was.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wore his heart on his sleeve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reggie

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiggs

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.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/tyson_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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.