mountainman

Introduction and Data

The image of casting lots is presented in the canon
at Matthew 27:35, where one translation provides:


We have Roman soldiers depicted as casting lots
for the clothes of the crucified chrestos.


Surely this image would not have been conducive
to be associated with the acts of apostles, yet
in at least two non canonical Acts we find:



I have not yet examined the Acts of Titus and the Acts of John. In the first instance
I do not have the text and in the second the beginning of the book is lost.


Chronological considerations

When were the christian apostles ever in a position to cast lots for the division of the world regions? What does the archaeology and the ancient historical accounts tell us of the demography of "the tribe of christians" in the first century, the second, or the third? We cannot find any unabiguous trace of christians in these forst three centuries. The author(s) of these two narratives appear to be writing in the past tense.

On the other hand, for the very first time in ancient history, after the eventful conversion of the Pontifex Maximus Constantine to christianity, there was immediately a very politically reality that the christians were then in a position to divide up the Roman empire, which is what happened from the time of the council of Nicaea.

So therefore, if the author(s) of these two tracts were writing in the past tense after the council of Nicaea, then this would adequately explain both the past tense of these narratives, and also the political concept that christians would be actually in a position to divide up the Roman empire. Do we have any disagreements with this analysis?



The Relationship between the "casting of lots" in the canon and the non canon

In the canon the Romans cast lots for the clothes of Jesus. In the noncanon the christians cast lots for the regions of the Roman empire.
What is going on here? The collegiate greek academic priesthoods of Ascelpius, Apollo, etc had been dispossessed of their lands and temples, shrines and monuments, and the right to continue to practice their ancient temple crafts, one of which included the
craft of healing --- the temples of Asclepius being regarded as the common public hospital "system" of antiquity. These Constantine utterly destroyed. Their head physician-priests were publically executed.

From the perspective of these greek academic ascetics, preservers of the texts of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Hermes, Asclepius, the new testament canon was not a suitable replacement state religion. So (IMO) they commenced to write the additional books of the new testament, the non canonical or apochryphal acts and gospels, etc. These authors were the Hellenic gnostics. They wrote in a satirical manner --- that the christian apostles were now in power and were casting lots for the dominion of the nations. This was in fact the political reality of the epoch in the eastern empire with the arrival of Constantine. These authors were previously part of a collegiate ministry of the preservers of gnostic and scientific knowledge: the product of the ancient Hellenic civilisations itself.

From their perspective he Hellenic Logos and Asclepius (son of Apollo) had been literally crucified by Constantine, and the appointed christian bishops, of the Bishop of Bishops Constantine, were establishing dominion over the regions wherein, for centuries and centuries, the greek academics had ruled in a collegiate manner, preserving Pythagoras et al, and governed by some form of authority related to the ascetic practice, common to many of the eastern traditions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, which had a long history around Egypt and Alexandria, in the early centuries, as is expansively desribed by Philo of Alexandria in the first century, and Porphyry in the very late third century.


So I would be inclined to put forward that the greek academic author(s) of these two acts took the following canonical reference

and composed instead a historical parody and/or satire in which ....

Such is my analysis at present concerning the act of the casting of lots by the christian apostles at the commencement of multiple new testament apochryphal acts to divide the nations and to convert them to the new Roman state religion of c.324 CE. I welcome any constructive criticism and/or comments.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

The "casting of lots" is also in John

"Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says:

"They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots."

"Therefore the soldiers did these things."

(John 19:23-24)

More recent notes

THE CASTING OF LOTS

The tradition of the apostles’ dividing the world by casting lots.

Scholars have suggested that the beginning of the Lucan Acts
had been the main source of this motif.

In Acts 1:15-26, namely, the apostles elect Matthias among their number by casting lots.

Richard Lipsius suggested that Acts 1:23-36 together with Matthew 28:19 (Jesus’ commissioning the disciples) served as sources for the apostles’ dividing the world by lot. Relying on Pseudo-Prochorus, Lipsius claimed that the motif was present already the hypothetical periodoi Ioannou in the second century.30

Dennis MacDonald has recently suggested that the Acts of Thomas was inspired by the Acts of Andrew and Matthias, whose opening scene, in turn, was modeled after Acts 1-2.31 That the apostles’ casting lots at the beginning of the Lucan Acts influenced the later apostolic Acts is an attractive hypothesis. There are, however, weak points in this theory.

ApostateAbe

The accounts of the Roman soldiers casting lots has a very simple explanation.

Psalms 22:18
They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.

Christians took Psalms 22 to be a prophecy about Jesus, and that would require that the executioners cast lots for Jesus' clothing.

mountainman

Your halfway there Apostate Abe. The OP also asks the question why the Gnostic authors had the apostles casting lots for the nations.

It would appear that while the canonical authors took their motif from Psalms, the Gnostic authors took their motif from the canonical authors of John and Matthew. The Gnostic "heretics" gave their term "casting lots" a new spin. What direction was this Gnostic and heretical spin in?

What is your very simple explanation of the Gnostic rendition?

Toto

In the ancient world, casting lots or dice was commonly viewed as a method for God to communicate with man. That is why the disciples used that method to pick a replacement for Judas, and why the apostles used that method to divide up the world. (Alternative methods were examining the entrails of a sacrificed chicken, or studying tea leaves or tarot cards in later times. There is an innate human tendency to find meaning in random events.)

How Biblical is casting lots? in answers2prayer.org lists 77 references in the Bible to casting lots (7 in the NT.) See also Divination in the Bible on tarot.com (I do not endorse either of those sites.)

Dividing up the world by lots need not have any relation to casting lots for clothing in Psalms 22:18 or during the crucifixion, except that casting lots was a common way of making any decision.

DNAReplicator

If you are prepared for the sake of discussion to play along with the textual analysis used to excavate a HJ from the NT/Q/Thomas, then I think there is a fairly straightforward answer. Jesus, in the early traditions seems to have believed that the ‘Kingdom of God’ was imminent, and would be brought into being by the appearance a ‘son of man’, who would come down from heaven to judge humanity. Jesus seems to have thought that by following his interpretation of Jewish law, he and the disciples would be the most worthy when the judgement came. The result would be that Jesus would in some way become a ‘king’, and each of the disciples would get a Jewish tribe to be leader of.

So the answer would be “in about 30AD, in their heads....”

rhutchin

Casting lots by the Roman soldiers was probably just gambling (as one might do in the casino) and someone wins while others lose. It seems doubtful, to me, that the soldiers were thinking of God while they gambled for a man's clothes. Nonetheless, God still would have determined the winner despite the mindset of the soldiers.

The disciples would have seen the casting lots to be under the control of God. Either God would allow the dice (or whatever was cast) to come to a natural conclusion or God could intervene to cause a different outcome. Either way, the outcome was God's decision to make and that outcome represented His will.

We might even say that the drawing of numbers in the various lotteries today represents God's will as God still controls the numbers that are chosen and can arrange them any way he wants without regard to whether people believe that He can do so.

Casting lots was not a way for God to communicate with men but more for men to determine God's will in any matter (although, technically, if God reveals His will through the casting of lots, I guess He has communicated that decision to men).

mountainman

That is one postulate. Lets call it postulate (1).
The phrases bear no significant relation to each other.
Its all just a simple coincidence.

There is a second postulate (2).
The phrases employed by the authors were "copied".
The author of John copy/pastes the author of Psalms into John.
The author of Matthew paraphrases the author of Psalms into Matthew.

Many commentators tend to subscribe to the second postulate. The usual saying is something like "The LXX was quote mined by the authors of the canonical Gospels, etc. --- whoever these pseudonymous authors of the new testament canonical literature may have been.

mountainman

Jesus became docetic in the Gnostic Gospels and Acts.

Thomas was sent to the Land of the Indians.
Matthias went to the land of the anthropophagi (cannibals).
These are hardly Jewish tribes.

Who were these gnostic authors?
What were they on about?

mountainman

The Gnostic counterparts present a diametrically opposed scenario. Thomas refuses to abide to the result / outcome of the casting of lots. Jesus suddenly appears on account of Thomas's refusal, and orders Thomas to go. Thomas refuses to obey Jesus's order.

Who were these Gnostic authors?
What were they doing?

ACTS OF THE HOLY APOSTLE THOMAS


1. At that season all we the apostles were at Jerusalem, Simon which is called Peter and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Canaanite, and Judas the brother of James: and we divided the regions of the world, that every one of us should go unto the region that fell to him and unto the nation whereunto the Lord sent him.

According to the lot, therefore, India fell unto Judas Thomas, which is also the twin: but he would not go, saying that by reason of the weakness of the flesh he could not travel, and 'I am an Hebrew man; how can I go amongst the Indians and preach the truth?' And as he thus reasoned and spake, the Saviour appeared unto him by night and saith to him: Fear not, Thomas, go thou unto India and preach the word there, for my grace is with thee. But he would not obey, saying: Whither thou wouldest send me, send me, but elsewhere, for unto the Indians I will not go.