06-02-2001, 02:58 AM
I didn't want to elaborate on that comment too much since I've noticed any hint that the gospels might not be 100% accurate tends to bring the Online Fundamentalist Avengers out of the woodwork. Oh well ...<br>
<br>
What I meant was that, while they are almost certainly recalling a historical crucifixion of a historical Yeshua by the historical Pontius Pilatus, the gospel accounts of the crucifixion were also written to make some important theological points. They were definitely written with one eye on various passages in the Old Testament, which the early Christians believed foretold the crucifixion, and they did so in the face of scepticism by their Jewish contemporaries regarding a crucified Messiah.<br>
<br>
In John, for example, the dying Jesus is given a drink of vinegar from a sponge held up to him on 'a hyssop stick'. Hyssop isn't a plant likely to produce a stick long enough to hold up to a crucified man, but it is one of the herbs associated with the Passover lamb. This detail is clearly theological rather than literal.<br>
<br>
The centurion actually first appears in what is likely to be the earliest gospel, Mark - a work which was possibly written <i> in</i> Rome for a Roman Christian audience. It seems to have been written in the wake of the Jewish War of 66-70 AD, partially to disassociate early Christianity from the Jewish rebels. This gospel, and its synoptic successors, goes to some lengths to make it clear that Jesus was executed at the instigation of the Jewish leaders and paints Pilate as a reluctant executioner - which doesn't really fit with what we know about this ruthlessly efficient administrator from other sources.<br>
<br>
It's interesting therefore, that in Mark the very first person to comment on Jesus' death and to acknowledge he was more than a man was not one of his followers or even a Jew, it was a <i> Roman</i> - the centurion of Mk 15:39.<br>
<br>
So, while it could well be that there <i> was</i> a centurion amongst the guards there, it is also very possible that this detail was added to make a theological and a political point - (i) Jesus was first recognised by a Roman gentile while he was reviled by the Jews of his homeland, something the Marcan gospel's Roman audience would appreciate and (ii) Jesus was executed by the same sort of Jewish leaders who later stirred up the recent revolt, and was acknowledged as something beyond Judaism by a wise Roman gentile.<br>
<br>
John Dominic Crossan's excellent book 'Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus' (Harper Collins: San Francisco, 1995) examines all this and the Old Testament parallels and echoes in the gospel accounts of the crucifixion and gives some good indicators as to which parts of these accounts may be less than historical. <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<BR>
<P>
Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>
</p><i></i>
<br>
What I meant was that, while they are almost certainly recalling a historical crucifixion of a historical Yeshua by the historical Pontius Pilatus, the gospel accounts of the crucifixion were also written to make some important theological points. They were definitely written with one eye on various passages in the Old Testament, which the early Christians believed foretold the crucifixion, and they did so in the face of scepticism by their Jewish contemporaries regarding a crucified Messiah.<br>
<br>
In John, for example, the dying Jesus is given a drink of vinegar from a sponge held up to him on 'a hyssop stick'. Hyssop isn't a plant likely to produce a stick long enough to hold up to a crucified man, but it is one of the herbs associated with the Passover lamb. This detail is clearly theological rather than literal.<br>
<br>
The centurion actually first appears in what is likely to be the earliest gospel, Mark - a work which was possibly written <i> in</i> Rome for a Roman Christian audience. It seems to have been written in the wake of the Jewish War of 66-70 AD, partially to disassociate early Christianity from the Jewish rebels. This gospel, and its synoptic successors, goes to some lengths to make it clear that Jesus was executed at the instigation of the Jewish leaders and paints Pilate as a reluctant executioner - which doesn't really fit with what we know about this ruthlessly efficient administrator from other sources.<br>
<br>
It's interesting therefore, that in Mark the very first person to comment on Jesus' death and to acknowledge he was more than a man was not one of his followers or even a Jew, it was a <i> Roman</i> - the centurion of Mk 15:39.<br>
<br>
So, while it could well be that there <i> was</i> a centurion amongst the guards there, it is also very possible that this detail was added to make a theological and a political point - (i) Jesus was first recognised by a Roman gentile while he was reviled by the Jews of his homeland, something the Marcan gospel's Roman audience would appreciate and (ii) Jesus was executed by the same sort of Jewish leaders who later stirred up the recent revolt, and was acknowledged as something beyond Judaism by a wise Roman gentile.<br>
<br>
John Dominic Crossan's excellent book 'Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus' (Harper Collins: San Francisco, 1995) examines all this and the Old Testament parallels and echoes in the gospel accounts of the crucifixion and gives some good indicators as to which parts of these accounts may be less than historical. <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<BR>
<P>
Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>
</p><i></i>
Tim ONeill / Thiudareiks Flavius /Thiudareiks Gunthigg
HISTORY FOR ATHEISTS - New Atheists Getting History Wrong
HISTORY FOR ATHEISTS - New Atheists Getting History Wrong
