(who was Jesus) wasRoman records
Ed Tyler errancy@infidels.org
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:03:31 -0500 (00924753811, 4.1.19990421175120.00b96880@pop.truman.edu)
At 06:45 PM 4/21/99 -0400, Mark L. Bakke wrote:
>>>> Ed
>>>> Again, you must demonstrate that Jesus was actually calling anyone
>>>> "Father." There's a very strong case to be made that all this "Father"
>>>> talk was inserted by the gospelers long after Jesus died.
>>>
>>>BAKKE
>>>If one can't accept the Gospel accounts that Jesus referred to anybody
>>>as "Father", on what basis can we accept that Jesus ever said *anything*
>>>that the Gospels attribute to him?
>>
>> Ed
>> There's no justification to throw all the sayings attributed to Jesus into
>> the same basket, especially when the synoptic gospels reveal at least three
>> distinct layers of composition.
>
>BAKKE
>That's not what I asked. I want to know on what basis we could accept
>any Gospel account of *anything* Jesus said. In other words, how does
>one determine which accounts can be trusted and which can not?
Ed
That one's going to take some typic, so I'll respond to it in the morning.
Just put in an 11 hour day and I'm going out to dinner with the most
beautiful woman in the world. There are some general criteria of
authenticity, but I don't think that any given saying can be claimed with
absolute certainty to be authentic. On the other hand, there are many that
are patently inauthentic to anyone who isn't irrationally superstitious.
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>BAKKE
>>>Seems to me that there's a better explanation. If I'm not mistaken, the
>>>breaking of a condemned man's legs was a separate punishment known as
>>>"crucifragium" and was not something that the Romans combined with
>>>crucifixion. Therefore, if Jesus was crucified, his legs would *not*
>>>have been broken in any case -- whether or not there was any purported
>>>OT "prophecy" to that effect.
>>>There's also one other unusual point about the crucifixion story.
>>>Crucifixion is not a punishment where the victim dies in a scant hour or
>>>three or even over the course of a single afternoon. Jesus, who was
>>>otherwise (it may reasonably be assumed) in good health, is reported to
>>>have died relatively quickly while the criminals crucified with him (and
>>>who likely were suffering the ill effects of their previous
>>>imprisonment) did not.
>>
>> Ed
>> I understand that crucifragium was also combined with crucifixion to hasten
>> death, but I'll have to look that up. The quickness attributed to Jesus'
>> death is probably not historical but it's not absolutely impossible either.
>
>BAKKE
>If it's not historical, may we assume that it's perhaps an embellishment
>of the story? If so, would that not constitute an error of fact in the
>Gospel stories?
Ed
I think so. I think it's a device to attempt to satisfy the gospelers'
interpretations of several OT prophecies, especially the Jonah analog and
certain parallels to the paschal lamb.
>
>> Ed
>> Crucifixion was always preceded by a severe beating that could have
>> punctured a lung or started internal bleeding, or the stress of the whole
>> thing could simply have caused a stroke or heart attack.
>
>BAKKE
>I don't recall seeing any Gospel account detailing or alluding to any
>such beating of Jesus. He may have been whipped ("scourged"), but that
>would not produce the injuries of which you speak. Also, it's rather
>doubtful that Jesus could have been under the influence of any great
>stress if he was actually a divine being who already knew the purpose of
>the crucifixion and was willing to make the sacrifice.
Ed
Actually, the gospel accounts speak of him being struck with a rod and
fists; they are, however, most likely ahistorical because there would have
been no one of Jesus' followers there to witness the beatings. The assumed
divinity is, of course, irrelevant because if he existed at all, Jesus was
no more a god than you or I, and didn't claim to be.
>
>> Ed
>> Anecdotally, when
>> I was with the 1st Infantry Division (Big Red One) at Fort Riley, one of my
>> sergeants who was a 29-year-old airborne ranger keeled over and died from a
>> heart attack during a very easy morning session of physical training.
>> Occasionally, young basketball players in much better health than you'd
>> expect of a Judean peasant drop dead on the court.
>
>BAKKE
>I, too, have seen such things during PT over the course of my 17 years
>in the Army. And, of course, most sports fans are familiar with the
>case of college basketball star Hank Gathers. However, investigation
>into these cases normally reveals a congenital heart defect that led to
>the death. I have rather serious doubts that any "perfect" Jesus could
>have had such a defect.
Ed
I don't think that the Christian doctrine of perfection extends to the
physical, but could be wrong. Have to ask a Christian on that account.
>
>> Ed
>> So while the gospel
>> account of a swift death is remarkable, it's far from impossible.
>
>BAKKE
>In the words often used by Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require
>extraordinary proofs". Yes, I agree that the Gospel claims on this
>matter are both remarkable and extraordinary. This is why the level of
>required proof for them must be so high. "Well, it *might* have
>happened that way" or "you must open your heart and believe" don't quite
>satisfy the required level of proof.
Ed
As I say, I find it remarkable, but not particularly exceptional.
Personally I doubt the historical veracity of the account but it's not so
far out that I'd make an issue of it. It could well have been that anyone
would kick off early after such treatment.