(who was Jesus) wasRoman records
Ed Tyler errancy@infidels.org
Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:19:23 -0500 (00924643163, 4.1.19990420105305.00b986b0@pop.truman.edu)
At 10:37 AM 4/20/99 -0400, Derek Pomery wrote:
>> J.
>> >Following is another tidbit that shows something was a little off kilter,
>it
>> >seems
>> >that the good savior died long before the other two.
>> >One might make a prophesy that if resurrected he could not walk away with
>two
>> >broken legs.
>> >
>> >TEXT
>> >19:31 The Jews, therefore, that the bodies might not remain on the
cross on
>> >the sabbath, since it was the preparation, (for that sabbath day was a
>great
>> >one,) asked of Pilate that their legs may be broken, and they taken away.
>> >19:32 The soldiers, therefore, came, and of the first indeed they did
break
>> >the legs, and of the other who was crucified with him,
>> >19:33 and having come to Jesus, when they saw him already having been
dead,
>> >they did not break his legs;
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> Again, you're begging the question of the historicity of the gospels. Who
>> says that they didn't break Jesus' legs? Only the gospels. It seems
>> obvious that the narrative element you cite was the product of "prophecy
>> historicized." John has invented this element so that he can claim that
>> the crucifixion fulfilled the prophecy that no bone of the Messiah would be
>> broken.
>
>DEREK
>The scripture referred to is in Exodus I believe, correct? Therfore, it
>is a bit of a stretch already to connect the rule about not cracking open
>the bones of the passover lamb (to get at the marrow?) with the Messiah.
>And let's not forget the lamb is to be utterly burned by morning. I would
>have been interested in seeing the explanation for that bit's fulfillment.
Ed
There are three passages that could be the source of this attribution:
Exodus 12:46, to which you refer, prohibits the breaking of the paschal
lamb's bones, as does Numbers 9:12. The obvious connection John would be
making with these allusions would be that of Christ as Passover sacrifice.
A third possible source for the allusion is Psalm 34:20, which tells of
YHWH's care for the "Righteous Sufferer": "He (YHWH) guards every bone of
his body, not one of them is broken."
John's wording does not represent a direct quote of any of the three
passages, although it more or less purports to be a quote. It is therefore
possible that John is citing a prophecy from a noncanonical scripture that
has since been lost. More than likely however, he simply got it wrong,
because John doesn't seem to be any more familiar with Judaism than Matthew
was.
Derek
>
>And my bible commentary refers me to Zechariah 10 for the side piercing
>episode that follows - the connection there I hardly see at all (except
>for the fact that both involved the wounding of someone).
Ed
Although Zechariah 12:10 was an important testimony to the early church,
(see also Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7) its significance can be attributed more to
the early church's misunderstanding of Jewish prophecy in the Old Testament
than to any reasonable connection.
Zechariah 12:10 reads: "They will look upon me, on him whom they have
pierced." The "me" is YHWH; and if read out of context, it certainly does
appear that YHWH is saying that he'll be pierced in plain view of many
(like Christ in John's gospel); but if you put the passage into its context
you realize that the change in person from "me" to "him" is significant.
The "him whom they have pierced" is not YHWH (nor any manifestation of
YHWH) but a human prophet. In its context, the prophecy of Zechariah is
not messianic but apocalyptic. Again, the author of John's gospel
demonstrates that he is not familiar with Judaism or the Old Testament.