Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 03-03-2012, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

John adds details, so does Luke, and so does Matthew.

How do these details make the account less plausible?

Quote:

Miracles are less plausible, for example

Only Luke mentions a miracle.

John speaks of a roman cohort and Matthew of ‘a great crowd’.

Presumably a roman cohort moving at night through the City to deliver an innocent Jew to a Jewish priest is neither discreet nor plausible.

Troops could presumably be moved about without anyone knowing their destination or purpose, as they are in any occupied territory.

The word John used translated 'cohort' was sometimes used to refer to a smaller unit of maybe 160 men. Even this may be thought excessive to deal with twelve disciples, but if the Sanhedrin suspected resistance, particularly on the return journey, that number could have been only just enough. There may have been, in their own minds, a delicate balance between low profile and sufficient manpower for them to achieve. The party may of course have arrived from different directions to avoid arousing suspicion.

Iskander · 03-03-2012, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

John speaks of a roman cohort and Matthew of ‘a great crowd’.

Presumably a roman cohort moving at night through the City to deliver an innocent Jew to a Jewish priest is neither discreet nor plausible.

Troops could presumably be moved about without anyone knowing their destination or purpose, as they are in any occupied territory.

The word John used translated 'cohort' was sometimes used to refer to a smaller unit of maybe 160 men. Even this may be thought excessive to deal with twelve disciples, but if the Sanhedrin suspected resistance, particularly on the return journey, that number could have been only just enough. There may have been, in their own minds, a delicate balance between low profile and sufficient manpower for them to achieve. The party may of course have arrived from different directions to avoid arousing suspicion.

John: 18

Quote:

4Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, ‘For whom are you looking?’5They answered, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’* Jesus replied, ‘I am he.’* Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.6When Jesus* said to them, ‘I am he’,* they stepped back and fell to the ground.7Again he asked them, ‘For whom are you looking?’ And they said, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’*8Jesus answered, ‘I told you that I am he.* So if you are looking for me, let these men go.’

John has the soldiers falling to the ground when Jesus said to them, “I am he”. This miracle is not as spectacular as the one in Luke, but it is a miracle, nevertheless.

The story, as in Mark, can be accepted as describing a reality and faith is not necessary for that, but the other 3 gospels require religious faith for the story to be accepted as describing real events.

sotto voce · 03-03-2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

John speaks of a roman cohort and Matthew of ‘a great crowd’.

Presumably a roman cohort moving at night through the City to deliver an innocent Jew to a Jewish priest is neither discreet nor plausible.

Troops could presumably be moved about without anyone knowing their destination or purpose, as they are in any occupied territory.

The word John used translated 'cohort' was sometimes used to refer to a smaller unit of maybe 160 men. Even this may be thought excessive to deal with twelve disciples, but if the Sanhedrin suspected resistance, particularly on the return journey, that number could have been only just enough. There may have been, in their own minds, a delicate balance between low profile and sufficient manpower for them to achieve. The party may of course have arrived from different directions to avoid arousing suspicion.

John: 18

Quote:

4Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, ‘For whom are you looking?’5They answered, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’* Jesus replied, ‘I am he.’* Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.6When Jesus* said to them, ‘I am he’,* they stepped back and fell to the ground.7Again he asked them, ‘For whom are you looking?’ And they said, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’*8Jesus answered, ‘I told you that I am he.* So if you are looking for me, let these men go.’

John has the soldiers falling to the ground when Jesus said to them, “I am he”. This miracle is not as spectacular as the one as the one in Luke, but it is a miracle, nevertheless.

But the miraculous is the premise of the Bible, not just from the turning of water into wine, but from near the beginning of the whole Christian revelation. If one does not accept, even pro tem., the possibility of the miraculous, one is not in the right thread. One cannot sensibly ask for apologetics and then remove the means of apologia. So even if this event was miraculous, and there is no explicit indication that it was, it does not make the account any less plausible, and there is no evidence at all that the arrest incident was embellished; only that it was seen in different ways.

Iskander · 03-03-2012, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

John: 18

John has the soldiers falling to the ground when Jesus said to them, “I am he”. This miracle is not as spectacular as the one as the one in Luke, but it is a miracle, nevertheless.

But the miraculous is the premise of the Bible, not just from the turning of water into wine, but from near the beginning of the whole Christian revelation. If one does not accept, even pro tem., the possibility of the miraculous, one is not in the right thread. One cannot sensibly ask for apologetics and then remove the means of apologia. So even if this event was miraculous, and there is no explicit indication that it was, it does not make the account any less plausible, and there is no evidence at all that the arrest incident was embellished; only that it was seen in different ways.

What is the meaning of ‘plausible’?

Answer, (OF AN EXCUSE OR EXPLANATION)
reasonable and likely to be true
Her story sounded perfectly plausible.
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionar...nary/plausible

If Mark can be accepted without faith his story is more plausible than the extended version of the other three.

The story [in mark] was extended and made less plausible.

Good night

sotto voce · 03-03-2012, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

If Mark can be accepted without faith

That disqualifies. Read the OP.

Quote:

Good night

Appropriate comment, at last.

Cege · 03-03-2012, 04:54 PM

Here's an apologetic answer to the less than harmonious versions in the four gospels:

link

Quote:

Problem: A man's ear is cut off before or after Jesus is seized
Verses: Mark 14:45-47, Luke 22:47-54, others; Status: Serious

An anonymous reader sends me this. In Mark, after Jesus is seized by the soldiers, one of Jesus' followers attacks with a sword. This is Mark 14:45-47:

And when he [Judas] came, he went up to him at once and said, "Rabbi!" And he kissed him. And they laid hands on him and seized him. But one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. (ESV)

Matthew 26:49-51 agrees, and is even more explicit about the order. However, when Luke retells this story, he can't present things in this order, because he wants to mention that Jesus healed the man (a detail only found in Luke). Thus, he reorders events so that Jesus is still free when the man's ear is cut off. This is Luke 22:47-51:

While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said to him, "Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him. (ESV)

It seems clear enough that, in Luke's version, Jesus hasn't been seized yet. And indeed, Luke tells us later (verse 54) that the men seized Jesus at that point. For what it's worth, John 18:4-12 also agrees that Jesus had not yet been seized when the man's ear was cut off.

In searching for solutions, my first thought was that perhaps Jesus was seized, but broke free to heal the man, and then was seized again. However, John presents the soldiers as being unwilling to come near Jesus until after Simon Peter attacks, which seems to make this harmonisation impossible.

There's more than one problem with the telling of this tale.

I have an additional question: did the ear fall to the ground when it was cut off, then Jesus touched the ear on the ground which flew to the servant's head and reattached? (ok, more than one question) did Jesus touch the man's head at the site of his missing ear and generate a new ear (perhaps leaving the original cut off ear on the ground)?

outhouse · 03-03-2012, 05:03 PM

Quote:

and there is no evidence at all that the arrest incident was embellished;

sure there is.

not one eye witness wrote about it.

and we have a few serious problems.

all of the later gospels built off Mark. beyond Mark, historicity falls off fast. the others are in fact building biblical jesus, not reporting on historical jesus. It doesnt mean there is no valid info in Matthew or Luke. just that we have to understand thay did add layers and thi sdoes discount some of their information presented.

outhouse · 03-03-2012, 05:05 PM

Quote:

I have an additional question: did the ear fall to the ground when it was cut off, then Jesus touched the ear on the ground which flew to the servant's head and reattached? (ok, more than one question) did Jesus touch the man's head at the site of his missing ear and generate a new ear (perhaps leaving the original cut off ear on the ground)?

it has Zero hsitoricity, and it probably didnt happen. Raise a sword to a temple guard and you would be run through. no pass or go.

You would not be let free, period.

Cege · 03-03-2012, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

I have an additional question: did the ear fall to the ground when it was cut off, then Jesus touched the ear on the ground which flew to the servant's head and reattached? (ok, more than one question) did Jesus touch the man's head at the site of his missing ear and generate a new ear (perhaps leaving the original cut off ear on the ground)?

it has Zero hsitoricity, and it probably didnt happen. Raise a sword to a temple guard and you would be run through. no pass or go.

You would not be let free, period.

Perhaps not an actual temple guard, but a mere servant/slave 'along for the ride'?

la70119 · 03-03-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

John speaks of a roman cohort and Matthew of ‘a great crowd’.

The word John used translated 'cohort' was sometimes used to refer to a smaller unit of maybe 160 men.

Except gJohn refers to the group of soldiers as the cohort.

http://biblos.com/john/18-3.htm

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
3588 [e]	ho	ὁ	-	Art-NMS
3767 [e]	oun	οὖν	Therefore	Conj
2455 [e]	Ioudas	Ἰούδας	Judas,	N-NMS
2983 [e]	labōn	λαβὼν	having procured	V-APA-NMS
3588 [e]	tēn	τὴν	the	Art-AFS
4686 [e]	speiran	σπεῖραν	band,	N-AFS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and [some]	Conj
1537 [e]	ek	ἐκ	from	Prep
3588 [e]	tōn	τῶν	the	Art-GMP
749 [e]	archiereōn	ἀρχιερέων	chief priests	N-GMP
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
1537 [e]	ek	ἐκ	from	Prep
3588 [e]	tōn	τῶν	the	Art-GMP
5330 [e]	Pharisaiōn	Φαρισαίων	Pharisees	N-GMP
5257 [e]	hypēretas	ὑπηρέτας	officers	N-AMP
2064 [e]	erchetai	ἔρχεται	comes	V-PIM/P-3S
1563 [e]	ekei	ἐκεῖ	there	Adv
3326 [e]	meta	μετὰ	with	Prep
5322 [e]	phanōn	φανῶν	torches,	N-GMP
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
2985 [e]	lampadōn	λαμπάδων	lamps	N-GFP
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
3696 [e]	hoplōn	ὅπλων	weapons.	N-GNP

Quote:

LSJ definition A.II for σπεῖραν: II. Milit., tactical unit, in the Ptolemaic army, BGU1806.4 (i B.C.); used to translate the Roman manipulus, Plb.11.23.1, al., Str.12.3.18, Plu. Aem.17; κατὰ σπείρας,= Lat. manipulatim, Plb.3.115.12; later, cohort, Act.Ap.10.1, J. BJ 3.4.2, IGRom.1.10 (Massilia), 1373 (Egypt), al., OGI208.2 (Nubia, ii A.D.), al. (gen. in this sense always σπείρης, Act.Ap. l.c., POxy.477.3 (ii A.D.), BGU73 (ii A.D.), OGIl.c., etc.).

Basically from the first century onwards the word σπεῖραν MEANT a Roman cohort in the accusative sense. The phrase in gJohn τὴν σπεῖραν would have meant the whole cohort, about 500 men.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.