(who was Jesus) wasRoman records
Ed Tyler errancy@infidels.org
Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:44:04 -0500 (00924813844, 4.1.19990422102216.00b9dcd0@pop.truman.edu)
At 10:27 PM 4/21/99 -0400, Mark L. Bakke wrote:
snip!
>
>> Ed
>> 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.
>
>BAKKE
>It would seem to me that the ability to demonstrate authenticity should
>be rather important to those who wish to claim inerrancy in the sayings
>of Jesus. What are these general criteria of authenticity to which you
>refer?
Ed
Just posted under an appropriate subject line.
You're right of course that the burden of proof for authenticity should
rest upon anyone claiming inerrancy. If you cannot demonstrate the
authenticity of for instance Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of
Jerusalem, that prophecy isn't worth much. Since the prophecy only occurs
in gospels produced after the destruction, but is resoundingly absent from
both canonical and noncanonical documents that pre-date the destruction,
the prophecy fails several criteria.
>
>> Ed
>> On the other hand, there are many that
>> are patently inauthentic to anyone who isn't irrationally superstitious.
>
>BAKKE
>I'd certainly agree with you on that count.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>BAKKE
>This sounds reasonable, since it would seem to be rather important for
>the Gospel writers to give their stories credibility by linking them to
>the OT stories that were well-known and generally accepted by Jewish
>audiences. Does this mean that even Jesus had to be "spin-doctored" by
>his supporters?
Ed
That's an understatement. There's very little connection between the
sayings that can with any reliability be attributed to Jesus and the
theology of Christianity. Paul had no demonstrable familiarity with the
teachings of Jesus, nor did the early followers of Jesus have any
demonstrable familiarity with Paul's theology. The New Testament is
virtually all Christian spin on the non-Christian Jesus movement.
Having said that. I should stress that what you find in Q, GoT, and the
pre-Markan material doesn't seem to be overly doctored (except perhaps for
the Gnostic material in GoT). They were followers of Jesus because they
liked his ideas about society and how to live with one another, not because
they thought that he had redeemed them from sin.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>BAKKE
>In addition, Roman justice did not permit such beatings. Also, there's
>a doctrinal problem if such beatings are assumed in that, according to
>Jewish law, sacrifices were supposed to be free from blemish in order to
>be acceptable. Jesus was supposed to be the "ultimate sacrifice".
>Would his sacrifice have been acceptable if he was beaten and bloodied?
>This doesn't even consider that sacrifices were supposed to be burned
>and that certainly didn't happen to Jesus.
Ed
Right. The gospelers' attempts to tie the "Christ event" to OT prophecy
show a very superficial knowledge of Judaism. I am naturally skeptical as
to how closely Roman law was followed in practice by the governors of
provinces like Judea, or how well the detachments of Roman soldiers were
restrained. I think that they enjoyed fillying about with their victims,
and that the gospels' accounts are based upon common knowledge of the
brutality of executions. Keep in mind that they were written to be
believed by people who saw a lot of crucifixions taking place.
>
>> Ed
>> 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.
>
>BAKKE
>Agreed.
>
>>>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.
>
>BAKKE
>I can't see why physical perfection (or something close to it) should be
>excluded. Of course, if Jesus was God (as Xian Trinitarian doctrine
>insists), then it would have been impossible for him to "die" in the
>first place.
Ed
It would certainly be a prerequisite for the paschal lamb analog, which had
to be free of any physical blemish.
>
>>>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.
>
>BAKKE
>Since the crucifixion incident is so important to the story of Jesus, I
>think it's one which is worthy of critical examination and one which
>bears a significant burden of proof.
Ed
Agreed. The quickness of Jesus' death is too convenient form a literary
standpoint for me to accept it; but I can't offer any compelling evidence
against it either, so I think the skeptic ought to concentrate on issues
that can be resolved. It's one piece of a large mosaic that when viewed at
arm's length shows a clear picture of a myth.