Iasion

Greetings all,

A quick GREP shows a few references which may be of interest - but only the first strictly meets your criteria.

It seems that at least the concept of hanging yourself was well known in these times - there are many other references in earlier and later works (e.g. 2 Samuel, Euripides, Theophrastus, Augustine, Irenaeus, Cassius Dio, Archelaeus, Origen)


Philo "On The Change of Names", about an impious man who hanged himself :

XIII. (61) : And it is only lately that I heard an ungodly and impious man mocking and ridiculing these things, who ventured to say, "Surely they are great and exceeding gifts which Moses says that the Ruler of the universe offers, who, by the addition of one element, the one letter alpha, a superfluous element; and then again adding another element, the letter rho, appears to have bestowed upon men a most marvellous and great benefit; for he has called the wife of Abram Sarrah instead of Sarah, doubling the Rho," and connecting a number of similar arguments without drawing breath, and joking and mocking, he went through many instances. But at no distant period he suffered a suitable punishment for his insane, wickedness; for on a very slight and ordinary provocation he hanged himself, in order that so polluted and impure a person might not die by a pure and unpolluted death.


Apuleis, "The Golden Ass" Ch.36, the cook decides to hang himself :

But there I remember, I thought my selfe in most danger, for there was one that brought to the Master of the house, a side of a fat Bucke for a present, which being hanged behind the kitchin doore, not far from the ground, was cleane eaten up by a gray hound, that came in. The Cooke when he saw the Venison devoured, lamented and wept pitifully. And because supper time approached nigh, when as he should be reproved of too much negligence, he tooke a halter to hang himselfe: but his wife perceiving whereabout he went, ran incontinently to him, and taking the halter in both her hands, stopped him of his purpose, saying, O husband, are you out of your writs? pray husband follow my counsel, cary this strange Asse out into some secret place and kill him, which done, cut off one of his sides, and sawce it well like the side of the Bucke, and set it before your Master.


Lucian of Samosata in "Works II, Lexiphanes", Dion hangs himself for reasons unknown :

'As for me,' said Eudemus, 'I was sent for in the gloaming by Damasias, the athlete many-victoried of yore, now pithless from age; you know him in bronze in the market. He was busy with roast and boiled. He was this day to exdomesticate his daughter, and was decking her out for her husband, when a baleful incident occurred, which cleft the feast in twain. For Dion his son, on grievance unknown, if it were not rather the hostility of Heaven, hanged himself; and be sure he was a dead man, had I not been there, and dislocated and loosed him from his implication. Long time I squatted a-knee, pricking and rocking, and sounding him, to see whether his throat was still whole. What profited most was compressure of the extremities with both my hands.'

Lucian mentions hanging a few other times.


Epictetus, Discourses, Ch.2, discusses hanging oneself as a rational act :

To the rational animal only is the irrational intolerable; but that which is rational is tolerable. Blows are not naturally intolerable. "How is that?" See how the Lacedaemonians endure whipping when they have learned that whipping is consistent with reason. "To hang yourself is not intolerable." When, then, you have the opinion that it is rational, you go and hang yourself. In short, if we observe, we shall find that the animal man is pained by nothing so much as by that which is irrational; and, on the contrary, attracted to nothing so much as to that which is rational.

Epictetus discusses hanging one-self a few times.


The Acts of Peter includes a story about Ptolemaeus wanting to hang himself (because he couldn't get the girl he wanted) :

Now, then, it is fitting for you to know the end of Ptolemaeus. He went home and sorrowed night and day over that which had befallen him, and by reason of the many tears which he shed, he became blind. And when he had resolved to rise up and hang himself, lo, about the ninth hour of the day, he saw a great light which enlightened the whole house, and heard a voice saying unto him: Ptolemaeus, God hath not given thee the vessels for corruption and shame, and yet more doth it not become thee which hast believed in me to defile my virgin, whom thou shalt know as thy sister, even as if I were unto you both one spirit (sic). But rise up and go quickly unto the house of the apostle Peter, and thou shalt see my glory; he shall make known unto thee what thou must do.



Appian "Civil Wars, Book 1" mentions a story where someone was pretended to have hanged himself :

73 Cornutus concealed himself in a hut and was saved by his slaves in an ingenious way, for finding a dead body they placed it on a funeral pyre, and when the spies came set fire to it and said they were burning the body of their master, who had hanged himself. In this way he was saved by his slaves.


Iasion

Chris Weimer

Right there is your first mistake since the Septuagint was riled against by the Jews. If he were to appeal to the Jewish audience he would have gone with the proto-MT, which already was very close to its present state by then.

The parallel to Moses was actually the anti-Jewish sentiment of Jesus freeing his people (cf. Mt 1:21) from "slavery" - which consists of both "sin" and from the bonds of Pharisaic Judaism.

You're right that the contradiction belongs to Matthew so why are you apologizing for it? There is no evidence in Matthew proper that Jesus had to be a bloodline descendent of David via Joseph. It's not really a Matthean problem but a Christian problem.

And you know quite well that Matthew doesn't follow through on this but makes him out to be godlike (albeit kingly as well).

Actually the entire book of Matthew is marred by the redactional agencies as well as probably all the books of the Bible. My point isn't trying to square away contradictions and I don't appreciate your ad hominem attacks. I know Matthew and Luke contain contradictions (such as the Nativity scene, among others) but here that in no way alters whether or not Matthew had a geneology for Mary or Joseph.

I'm sure that he might have had the diasporic Jews in mind, but overall he does not appear to be symphathetic towards the Jews, instead he riles against them in his polemics and condemns them at the end. He makes Jesus out to be a saviour not of the Jews but from the Jews. The Jews who are left after the destruction of Jerusalem are more vulnerable than the Jews were in Jerusalem. They're a different breed and it was from them that the idea of bloodline through the mother indicated Jewishness (probably, as stated before, as a defense for children born of a Jewish mother but a Roman soldier).

Family Man

How odd. I was thinking the same about you. (Hint: cheap personal shots do little to enhance one's credibility. I suggest you stop because I know far more than your empty claim implies.)


Yes, let's use logic. In patriarchial societies, descent is always through the male line. Matthew's genealogy is clearly patrilineal. Every other genealogy in the Bible is patrilineal. Conclusion: Matthew intended his genealogy to be Jesus's patrilineal descent from David through Joseph.

It is not logical to assume that a few friendly references to females indicates that the genealogy's plain text should be ignored in favor of a interpretation designed only to come to a predetermined conclusion. That simply does not follow.

I never claimed anything about your interpretation other than it has no real support. I suggest you read my posts more closely.

Because what you're doing is reinterpreting a passage to your desired conclusion on the flimiest of evidence. As a skeptic and critical thinker, I don't reinterpret passages. I question them. I consider whether they represent the truth or an polemical and theological position. But I do not claim that the authors really meant to say something other than what they say without pretty substantial evidence that that's true.

I did not ignore what you wrote. Let me quote myself to prove it to you:

AND

To be clear: in patriarchial societies women can certainly be spoken and written of in positive ways, but genealogies are strictly through the male line. This is true of Matthew's genealogy; it is true of Luke's genealogy; it is true of every other genealogy in the Bible. That's the cultural context, not a few passages where women just happen to be mentioned that aren't relevant to Jesus's descent from David. Try to deal with it.

judge

Thanks Iasion!
What is a GREP?

Can you explain how you found these refs?

Amaleq13

There is no contradiction if Matthew's author (and the community for which he wrote) accepted the notion that Jesus could legitimately obtain Davidic lineage through adoption. This was discussed in this earlier thread.

Chris Weimer

You can think it all you want but your a priori assumption about certain sterotypical positions of the Bible give you away as some enthusiast who isn't too well read.

Yet Matthew was written during a time of feminization and development of the Mary Magdalyn character. Matthew is so obviously not Jewish that to claim it follows Judaism is ignoring the wider context. If you notice, Matthew was copying 1st Chronicles. That is why it would seem to be patrilineal, but Matthew's theology was so far removed from "man only" theology of 5th-4th century Judaism that to claim it was the "culture" is not only ignoring the context but deliberately taking it out of context and placing it in a new one, anachronistically, and is very dishonest.

How hypocritical of you! You quite clearly label yourself a "skeptic" which means that you have an a priori position that everything is wrong until proven right. I harbor no such biases against the text, I read it, I examine it, I figure out what it means and I present my conclusion. Even without Luke's geneology Matthew's still appears to be the geneology of Mary. And even with this conclusion, it still doesn't change the fact that it is riddled with errors (see all the missing people Matthew left out). You are blatantly misrepresenting my position.

You maligned me with Christian apologists.
Very clearly here you imply that I hold some sort of infallibility of the Bible, else why would you throw out the Red Herring that something else must be "screwed up" with the Bible. Bad form.

Who's reinterpreting here? I suspect you have an excellent knowledge of Koine Greek and a good education in Textual Criticism to really say for sure what Matthew says, do you not? I mean, after all, if we're only reading it in English, why, that would be interpretive of you, wouldn't it? I sure hope for your sake, lest you further make an ass of yourself.

It so happens that this quote further evidences my position, and your next one only would bear relevance in preChristian Judaism, which is not here.

Really, then why have the special emphasis on Mary then? Why Mary above all other women? What about the Mary of Magdalyn stories? The Gospel according to Mary? The "favored" disciple...? You ignore entirely the whole Christian concept. Get with the program or get out.

Amaleq13

Let's just stick to the facts and leave out the personal jabs, OK? Focus on the argument presented and avoid commenting on the individual making the argument.

Family Man

Actually, Ameleq, you're misreading me the same way that Chris is. I personally don't care much about contradictions per se. It is the dubious apologetics that resolve it through flimsy evidence (such as Chris employs) that I object to. That the Christian community believed adoption legitimized Jesus's claim strikes me not only believable but almost required given Christian doctrine. However, that only explains why the contradiction exists, it doesn't really resolve it.

Amaleq13

I wasn't clear enough. I agreed with what I quoted from you and was going on from that point to suggest that it does not necessarily constitute an actual contradiction with the notion of a divine birth. Sorry for the confusion.

It seems to me to eliminate it entirely. It suggests that the apparent contradiction is the result of "our" anachronistic interpretation rather than author error or confusion.

Family Man

I think all I need to do here point out Ameleq's warning. Your claim is both wrong and inappropriate.

Yes, all that is true except for the last sentence. It is also irrelevant. That Matthew's gospel is feminist-friendly is both well known and not contradictory towards anything I said. Just because Matthew was feminist-friendly (comparatively speaking) doesn't mean he meant to overturn the patriarchial society of the time. It appears to me that you're the one that wants to place modern feminism into the 1st century. It doesn't follow that because Matthew theology wasn't as patriarchial as some that he was therefore matriarchial, much less that he intended Jesus's genealogy to be through Mary's.

That isn't what a skeptic does. It isn't even close to what a skeptic does. What a skeptic does is to examine texts and looks for problems. If he finds a problem, he rejects it. If he doesn't find problems, he accepts it. Your presentation of skepticism is clearly flawed.

Actually, that is a patently false statement since we all approach things with biases. I think what you meant to say was that you try to examine it without bias, but your cavalier dismissal of Matthew's plain text suggests you don't have your biases fully under control.

You also insert things that aren't there (namely, Mary into a genealogy).

Based on what? The unsubstantiated possibility that someone mistranslated a word? Because Matthew liked women? No, it appears to be genealogy of Joseph. It says it is genealogy of Joseph. All you have is a supposition (and an unlikely one at that) and a non-sequitor.

The people Matthew left out isn't anything I've mentioned nor is it relevant. How something I've never talked about misrepresents your position is a mystery to me.

I've attacked your argument. Whether or not you consider yourself to be a Christian apologist is besides the point. You are certainly making the same type of bad arguments that Christian apologists make.

If you feel I've maligned you, it is better to do what Ameleq did in his previous post and kindly explain the misunderstanding rather than start accusing someone else of ignorance. Frankly, you're going to get little sympathy from me when you first tell me I'm ignorant then tell me that skeptics assume everything is wrong until proven true -- a truly ridiculous definition of skepticism. Your arguments appear to me to be in the same vein as traditional Christian apologetics and just as invalid. I understand that you don't think the Bible to be infallible -- so why the insistence that this error must be "resolved" by inserting Mary where she clearly doesn't belong? Why not go with the mainstream scholarly thinking that Matthew and Luke inserted bogus genealogy claims (especially since you seem to be aware of Matthew's borrowing of genealogies from the Old Testament) to bolster their claim that Jesus was the Messiah?


And do you demand the same of yourself? Stop the idiotic charade. The Bible was interpreted and commented upon by experts. Yes, there are a few difficult passages that might require such training; this isn't one of them.

I don't think I'm the one with the problem you mention there, as your definition of skepticism evidences.


If your point about Matthew relative feminism were valid in the context of what we're discussing, you'd have a point. Since it is clear that it isn't...

Your argument is a non-sequitor as I've already explained above. Let me try to explain it this way. I'm a supporter of feminism. I supported my wife through college and now she working and making quite a lot of money. It doesn't follow, however, that that means I'm emasculated and spend my days wearing an apron and cleaning the house and kowtowing to my wife's every whim. That Matthew emphasized the two main women throughout his text does not entitle us to assume that Matthew therefore intended that the genealogy must be through Mary. Jesus was still the guy in charge after all, genealogies (including Matthew's) were still patrilineal, and there is a limit to Matthew's feminism. You're clearly overstating the case here.