Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-03-2008, 09:11 AM

Please don't let the language in this forum become overly inflammatory or personal.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

schilling.klaus · 03-04-2008, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

How can there be a forgery when the entire gospel story describes the transformation of the human mind and not much else.

the base story does, but the canonical story has sociopolitical purposes, thus is forged

Quote:

I hold that the 4 gospels were written to make this clear in that they complement each other to make this insight known to the casual reader who is curious about these things because they are happening to him. This same mindset is present in Joseph who was the undergoer of this event . . . and that is what made him worthy to be our patron saint of the family (I think they call him).

Irenaeus or whoever forged the canonical gospels for the sake of the Roman Catholic Church not before mid second century certainly had this in mind, but proper Christianity like that of Satornil of Antioch deprecates family.

Klaus Schilling

ph2ter · 03-04-2008, 03:27 AM

In the Passion narrative exist some interesting similarities with the description of the Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16 and also some important features described in the Mishnah. The epistle of Barnabas, Tertullian and Origen explicitly connects the ritual with the Passion. Some implicit connections can be noted already in Hebrews and Paul.
In that ritual one of the goats was killed, and its blood was sprinkled in the inner chamber of the sanctuary. The high priest placed his hands on the head of the second goat and confessed over it all of Israel's sins. The accursed goat was then led into "the wilderness" and released.
Jesus was connected with the first goat and was also identified by some with the second goat, although the second goat's association with demons (Azazel) in some way probably inhibited application to Christ.
Explicit presentation in the Passion to the crowd a choice between the two prisoners is in parallel with the Mishnah condition that the two goats must be identical in appearance. The crowd in the Markan narrative assume that if one prisoner is released, the other must be killed. This feature supports the theory that the narrative was constructed with the rituals of Leviticus 16 in mind.
What is interesting is that Matthew supplements Mark's story by making the connection more stronger. For example the specification of Barabbas's first name as "Jesus" and choice between the two persons with the same name, Jesus Christ, Son of the Father (God) and Jesus Bar-Abbas, Son of the Father (the similarity of the goats), or the double confession and Pilate washing his hands at the end of the act (the scapegoat ritual, too, end with the confession and a subsequent washing) or changing Mark's purple cloak to scarlet which is probably allusion to the scarlet wool tied around scapegoat head.
If Mark's story is written first, then we must conclude that Matthew properly understood the parallels with the Yom Kippur ritual in the Mark's Passion Narrative and that he did not worry about the historicity of the event. Clear sign that the driving force for the Gospel writers was not to describe historical events, but rather to make theological points.
I am convinced that the whole Passion story is a literary invention and bears no historical data.

Amaleq13 · 03-04-2008, 08:38 AM

IIRC, Crossan discusses the connection between the Passion and the two goats ritual but I don't recall which book. I think it was The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Ben C Smith · 03-04-2008, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

IIRC, Crossan discusses the connection between the Passion and the two goats ritual but I don't recall which book. I think it was The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (or via: amazon.co.uk).

I think he also does it in The Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), but everything he writes in The Cross That Spoke is much more detailed, so if it is there (and it has been too long for me to remember) that is the book to skim on the subject.

Ben.

ph2ter · 03-05-2008, 12:51 AM

Also interesting book The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity by Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra

ph2ter · 03-07-2008, 07:11 AM

Besides Yom Kippur and Passover, also another Jewish holiday is probably connected with the Passion story.
Philo recorded incident with Carabas when the populace of Alexandria insulted Agrippa upon his visit there by dressing up an idiot, Carabas, as a mock king. The similarity of the names Carabas and Barabbas makes it tempting to speculate that behind both is a scapegoating ritual in which one man is installed as a mock-king and then executed. That resembles the mock king of the Saturnalia, but still more closely the treatment of the mock king of the Babylonian Sacaea. The Greek historian Dio Chrysostom speaks of an annual king of the Sacaea: "They take one of the prisoners condemned to death and make him sit on a royal throne; they dress him in royal robes... but in the end they undress him, scourge him and hang him.". This was probably connected with an ancient fertility cult. The Jewish festival of Purim in its main features is probably a continuation of the Babylonian Sacaea. Suggestion is that the Jews, in borrowing the festival, may have copied from the Babylonians the practice of putting to death at that date a malefactor, who, after masquerading as Mordecai, in a crown and royal robe, was hanged or crucified in the character of Haman. The resemblance between the hanged Haman from the Book of Esther and the crucified Christ struck the early Christians and whenever the Jews destroyed an effigy of Haman they were accused by their Christian neighbours of deriding the most sacred mystery of the Christian faith. The practice was well known under the Roman empire, for in the year 408 A.D. the emperors Honorius and Theodosius issued a decree commanding the governors of the provinces to take care that the Jews should not burn effigies of Haman on a cross at one of their festivals. In the Greek translation of the Septuagint as well as in Flavius Josephus Haman’s gallows was interpreted as a cross, and the execution of him was described, in effect, as a true and proper crucifixion. Haman, who, in the Biblical text is referred to as talui, "the hanged one", was confused with the the crucified Christ. According to the great English anthropologist James George Frazer, Christ died while playing the role of Haman (the dying god) in a drama of Purim in which (Jesus) Barabbas, the double of Jesus of Nazareth, played the part of Mordechai (the god that resurges). In the model of the god that dies and is reborn, Haman is said to have played the part of death and Mordechai that of life, while the celebration of Purim is said to constitute the Hebraic ritual of death and resurrection.

PhilosopherJay · 03-07-2008, 10:21 AM

Hi Andrew,

Here is a case where it is, I believe, obvious that Matthew and Luke are dependent on John.

Compare John 4:46-54 and his story of a healing request with Matthew and Luke's version. Curiously, Mark does not touch this tale.

Quote:

4.46 So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine. And at Capernaum there was an official whose son was ill. 4.47 When he heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he went and begged him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death. 4.48 Jesus therefore said to him, "Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe." 4.49 The official said to him, "Sir, come down before my child dies." 4.50 Jesus said to him, "Go; your son will live." The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way. 4.51 As he was going down, his servants met him and told him that his son was living. 4.52 So he asked them the hour when he began to mend, and they said to him, "Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him." 4.53 The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live"; and he himself believed, and all his household. 4.54 This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee.

Here is Matthew's version:

Quote:

8.5 As he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him. 8.6 and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress." 8.7 And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." 8.8 But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8.9 For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." 8.10 When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. 8.11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 8.12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." 8.13 And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; be it done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Here's Luke version:

Quote:

7.1 After he had ended all his sayings in the hearing of the people he entered Capernaum. 7.2 Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. 7.3 When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. 7.4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, 7.5 for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." 7.6 And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; 7.7 therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 7.8 For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." 7.9 When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." 7.10 And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.

John tells the story of a Jewish Official making a request of Jesus to save his son's life. Jesus does not want to do it because he is reluctant to do signs and the man just wants him to do a signs. We know from other incidents that Jewish officials (Pharisees) demanded signs of Jesus and he was reluctant.The man begs Jesus for his son's life. Jesus relents and tells him that his child will be well. The man finds out that his son is well before he reaches his home. This indicates that Jesus can do magic from afar. The man finds out that it was at the exact time that Jesus said he would be well that the son became well. That proves that it was not a coincidence and Jesus really was the cause.

Matthew and Luke have drastically changed this simple story that shows Jesus being a powerful and compassionate magician, who is even willing to help his enemies: the Jewish Officials. The story is a nice wish-fulfillment of the "my other/enemy needing me and recognizing my power" variety.

I will argue that John's story makes sense as it is, while Matthew and Luke have twisted the basic facts for their specific later ideological purposes. Let us examine these five points: 1)the movement from a Jewish to a Roman story, 2) from a dying son to an injured slave, 3) the Reluctance of the Miracle Worker, 4) the timing of the belief in Jesus's powers, and 5) the declaration and witnessing of the miracle

1) The Movement from a Jewish to a Roman story:

Matthew has changed the Jewish official into a Roman centurian. The pointi is no longer that Jesus is merciful to his Jewish enemies, but that that he will help even the most hated enemy of the Jews, as long as they are Godfearing. Note the statement "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. 8.11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 8.12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."

Caught between John's Jewish rescue story and Matthew's Roman rescue story, as he usually does, Luke splits the difference and tries to have it both ways. It is a Roman centurian who makes the request, but Jewish officials (Luke embellishes a single Jewish official in John into an unspecified number of officials.) who carry the request to Jesus.

2) From a Dying Son to an Injured Slave:

In John, it is the Jewish official's son who is sick and close to death. In Matthew it is simply a slave who is paralyzed and in distress. The secondary implication is that Roman's are good masters and are concerned about their slaves. It also shows that Jesus too is concerned about slaves if they are obedient to there masters: "For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." Matthew has replaced Jesus's concern for the life of a Jewish child, with Jesus' concern for broken Roman property (the Centurian's slave)

Luke again splits the different between John and Matthew. It is a Roman slave he saves as in Matthew, but, as in John, it is someone sick and at the point of death (not just paralyzed as in Matthew).

3) The Reluctance of the Miracle Worker:

In John, Jesus is reluctant to go at first, even though it is a child's life at stake. He first answer's the Jewish official's pleas by saying, "Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe." Matthew has corrected this impression of an uncaring savior who possibly can't perform miracles. The moment the centurion tells Jesus about the paralyzed slave, Jesus is ready to run off and help, ""I will come and heal him."

Luke splits the difference between refusing to immediately go to someone's aid (John) and rushing off like Superman (Matthew). He has the elders convince him. "they besought him earnestly, saying, 'He is worthy to have you do this for him, 7.5 for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue. '"

4) The Timing of the Belief in Jesus's Powers:

In John the man believes in Jesus only after Jesus helps him, "Jesus said to him, "Go; your son will live." The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way. In Matthew, the Centurion believes without even Jesus having to come heal his servant, "And he said to him, 'I will come and heal him.' But the centurion answered him, 'Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.' The Jewish official in John's story gets proof of Jesus' power from the fact of the timing of Jesus' pronouncement being synchronized with the recovery of the child. In Matthew, the centurion already knows that Jesus' word works miracles. He needs no sign of proof.

In Luke, the centurion does not even have to meet Jesus to believe in him. In fact the centurion never even meets Jesus in the story, "the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, 'Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed.' "

5) The Declaration and Witnessing of the Miracle:

In John, the servants bring the news to the returning father. The reader has to trust that the servants are telling the truth. They are the witnesses. We are not told by the narrator that the healing in fact took place.

In Matthew, we are told directly that the boy was healed, "And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; be it done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment." The narrator declares the fact of the miracle.

Luke combines the two and has both the declaration by the narrator and the witnesses. He has the servants return home and see the miracle for themselves. Thus, he combines Matthew and John, the narrator tells us the cure took place and the servants are witnesses to it.

In any of these five cases, it is difficult to see how the text could have changed except from the John original to the Matthew and Luke copy.

It also gives strong evidence that Luke knew Matthew and both Matthew and Luke knew of John's Gospel and copied from it.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IF the passion narrative in John is (at least in its origins) independent of the Synoptics then this would provide evidence for a pre-Markan passion narrative.

IF the passion narrative in John is largely dependent on the Synoptics then the case becomes much weaker.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 03-08-2008, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

Besides Yom Kippur and Passover, also another Jewish holiday is probably connected with the Passion story.
Philo recorded incident with Carabas when the populace of Alexandria insulted Agrippa upon his visit there by dressing up an idiot, Carabas, as a mock king. The similarity of the names Carabas and Barabbas makes it tempting to speculate that behind both is a scapegoating ritual in which one man is installed as a mock-king and then executed. That resembles the mock king of the Saturnalia, but still more closely the treatment of the mock king of the Babylonian Sacaea. The Greek historian Dio Chrysostom speaks of an annual king of the Sacaea: "They take one of the prisoners condemned to death and make him sit on a royal throne; they dress him in royal robes... but in the end they undress him, scourge him and hang him.". This was probably connected with an ancient fertility cult. The Jewish festival of Purim in its main features is probably a continuation of the Babylonian Sacaea. Suggestion is that the Jews, in borrowing the festival, may have copied from the Babylonians the practice of putting to death at that date a malefactor, who, after masquerading as Mordecai, in a crown and royal robe, was hanged or crucified in the character of Haman. The resemblance between the hanged Haman from the Book of Esther and the crucified Christ struck the early Christians and whenever the Jews destroyed an effigy of Haman they were accused by their Christian neighbours of deriding the most sacred mystery of the Christian faith. The practice was well known under the Roman empire, for in the year 408 A.D. the emperors Honorius and Theodosius issued a decree commanding the governors of the provinces to take care that the Jews should not burn effigies of Haman on a cross at one of their festivals. In the Greek translation of the Septuagint as well as in Flavius Josephus Haman’s gallows was interpreted as a cross, and the execution of him was described, in effect, as a true and proper crucifixion. Haman, who, in the Biblical text is referred to as talui, "the hanged one", was confused with the the crucified Christ. According to the great English anthropologist James George Frazer, Christ died while playing the role of Haman (the dying god) in a drama of Purim in which (Jesus) Barabbas, the double of Jesus of Nazareth, played the part of Mordechai (the god that resurges). In the model of the god that dies and is reborn, Haman is said to have played the part of death and Mordechai that of life, while the celebration of Purim is said to constitute the Hebraic ritual of death and resurrection.

Andrew Lang has a lovely critique of Frazer in Magic and Religion
http://www.archive.org/details/magicreligion00languoft
http://ia360611.us.archive.org/3/ite...guoft_djvu.txt
it is famous/notorious for labelling Frazer and his school the Covent Garden school of mythologists because of their alleged obsession with vegetables.

Andrew Criddle

[Note for US readers: Covent Garden is or was the main vegetable market for London.]

andrewcriddle · 03-08-2008, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

Here is a case where it is, I believe, obvious that Matthew and Luke are dependent on John.

Compare John 4:46-54 and his story of a healing request with Matthew and Luke's version. Curiously, Mark does not touch this tale.

.................................................. .....................................

John tells the story of a Jewish Official making a request of Jesus to save his son's life. Jesus does not want to do it because he is reluctant to do signs and the man just wants him to do a signs. We know from other incidents that Jewish officials (Pharisees) demanded signs of Jesus and he was reluctant.The man begs Jesus for his son's life. Jesus relents and tells him that his child will be well. The man finds out that his son is well before he reaches his home. This indicates that Jesus can do magic from afar. The man finds out that it was at the exact time that Jesus said he would be well that the son became well. That proves that it was not a coincidence and Jesus really was the cause.

Matthew and Luke have drastically changed this simple story that shows Jesus being a powerful and compassionate magician, who is even willing to help his enemies: the Jewish Officials. The story is a nice wish-fulfillment of the "my other/enemy needing me and recognizing my power" variety.

I will argue that John's story makes sense as it is, while Matthew and Luke have twisted the basic facts for their specific later ideological purposes. Let us examine these five points: 1)the movement from a Jewish to a Roman story, 2) from a dying son to an injured slave, 3) the Reluctance of the Miracle Worker, 4) the timing of the belief in Jesus's powers, and 5) the declaration and witnessing of the miracle

1) The Movement from a Jewish to a Roman story:

Matthew has changed the Jewish official into a Roman centurian. The pointi is no longer that Jesus is merciful to his Jewish enemies, but that that he will help even the most hated enemy of the Jews, as long as they are Godfearing. Note the statement "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. 8.11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 8.12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."

Caught between John's Jewish rescue story and Matthew's Roman rescue story, as he usually does, Luke splits the difference and tries to have it both ways. It is a Roman centurian who makes the request, but Jewish officials (Luke embellishes a single Jewish official in John into an unspecified number of officials.) who carry the request to Jesus.

2) From a Dying Son to an Injured Slave:

In John, it is the Jewish official's son who is sick and close to death. In Matthew it is simply a slave who is paralyzed and in distress. The secondary implication is that Roman's are good masters and are concerned about their slaves. It also shows that Jesus too is concerned about slaves if they are obedient to there masters: "For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." Matthew has replaced Jesus's concern for the life of a Jewish child, with Jesus' concern for broken Roman property (the Centurian's slave)

Luke again splits the different between John and Matthew. It is a Roman slave he saves as in Matthew, but, as in John, it is someone sick and at the point of death (not just paralyzed as in Matthew).

3) The Reluctance of the Miracle Worker:

In John, Jesus is reluctant to go at first, even though it is a child's life at stake. He first answer's the Jewish official's pleas by saying, "Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe." Matthew has corrected this impression of an uncaring savior who possibly can't perform miracles. The moment the centurion tells Jesus about the paralyzed slave, Jesus is ready to run off and help, ""I will come and heal him."

Luke splits the difference between refusing to immediately go to someone's aid (John) and rushing off like Superman (Matthew). He has the elders convince him. "they besought him earnestly, saying, 'He is worthy to have you do this for him, 7.5 for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue. '"

4) The Timing of the Belief in Jesus's Powers:

In John the man believes in Jesus only after Jesus helps him, "Jesus said to him, "Go; your son will live." The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went his way. In Matthew, the Centurion believes without even Jesus having to come heal his servant, "And he said to him, 'I will come and heal him.' But the centurion answered him, 'Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.' The Jewish official in John's story gets proof of Jesus' power from the fact of the timing of Jesus' pronouncement being synchronized with the recovery of the child. In Matthew, the centurion already knows that Jesus' word works miracles. He needs no sign of proof.

In Luke, the centurion does not even have to meet Jesus to believe in him. In fact the centurion never even meets Jesus in the story, "the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, 'Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed.' "

5) The Declaration and Witnessing of the Miracle:

In John, the servants bring the news to the returning father. The reader has to trust that the servants are telling the truth. They are the witnesses. We are not told by the narrator that the healing in fact took place.

In Matthew, we are told directly that the boy was healed, "And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; be it done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment." The narrator declares the fact of the miracle.

Luke combines the two and has both the declaration by the narrator and the witnesses. He has the servants return home and see the miracle for themselves. Thus, he combines Matthew and John, the narrator tells us the cure took place and the servants are witnesses to it.

In any of these five cases, it is difficult to see how the text could have changed except from the John original to the Matthew and Luke copy.

It also gives strong evidence that Luke knew Matthew and both Matthew and Luke knew of John's Gospel and copied from it.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Hi Philosopher Jay

One problem is the ambiguity of the Greek words used for the sick person.
PAIS which is used consistently in Matthew can mean Boy/Child or Slave John partly uses PAIS/PAIDION but mostly hUIOS which is unambiguously Son. Luke consistently uses DOULOS which is unambiguously Slave.

Matthew appears to be primitive here, with the acounts in Luke and John secondarily modified to remove the ambiguity. (There is a similar ambiguity in John that the BASILIKOS might be a Jewish official or a Roman one.)

We also have the fact that in Matthew and Luke the story takes place at Capernaum while in John, Jesus is at Cana with people travelling to see him from Capernaum. Given the fact that Cana in Galilee is a particular concern of John (see John 2:1-11) the obvious explanation is that the story was originally set at Capernaum with the location at Cana being secondary in John and the original location being preserved in Matthew and Luke.

Combined with the secondary features you noticed in the Matthew/Luke account compared to John this IMO indicates that Matthew and John are drawing independently on a common source.

The position of Luke is less clear. In some cases the account genuinely seems closer to John than Matthew (the servant is dying not paralyzed), although IMHO the addition of the Jewish officials as intermediates between the centurion and Jesus is unlikely to be due to influence from a Johannine version of the story and is probably Lukan secondary development. There are several possibilities involving the use by Luke of the account in John, the account in Matthew and the hypothetical account used directly or indirectly by Matthew and John. IMHO if we accept the existence of such a primitive account underlying Matthew and John it is easiest to account for Luke's version on the basis of free use by Luke of either Matthew and this primitive account, or a version of this primitive account which is pre-Matthaean but already modified in a Matthaen direction (eg by having the official a centurion). In this second alternative Luke does not use Matthew.

Andrew Criddle

03-04-2008, 03:27 AM	#13
ph2ter Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Europe Posts: 219	Two goats ritual as a source for the Passion In the Passion narrative exist some interesting similarities with the description of the Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16 and also some important features described in the Mishnah. The epistle of Barnabas, Tertullian and Origen explicitly connects the ritual with the Passion. Some implicit connections can be noted already in Hebrews and Paul. In that ritual one of the goats was killed, and its blood was sprinkled in the inner chamber of the sanctuary. The high priest placed his hands on the head of the second goat and confessed over it all of Israel's sins. The accursed goat was then led into "the wilderness" and released. Jesus was connected with the first goat and was also identified by some with the second goat, although the second goat's association with demons (Azazel) in some way probably inhibited application to Christ. Explicit presentation in the Passion to the crowd a choice between the two prisoners is in parallel with the Mishnah condition that the two goats must be identical in appearance. The crowd in the Markan narrative assume that if one prisoner is released, the other must be killed. This feature supports the theory that the narrative was constructed with the rituals of Leviticus 16 in mind. What is interesting is that Matthew supplements Mark's story by making the connection more stronger. For example the specification of Barabbas's first name as "Jesus" and choice between the two persons with the same name, Jesus Christ, Son of the Father (God) and Jesus Bar-Abbas, Son of the Father (the similarity of the goats), or the double confession and Pilate washing his hands at the end of the act (the scapegoat ritual, too, end with the confession and a subsequent washing) or changing Mark's purple cloak to scarlet which is probably allusion to the scarlet wool tied around scapegoat head. If Mark's story is written first, then we must conclude that Matthew properly understood the parallels with the Yom Kippur ritual in the Mark's Passion Narrative and that he did not worry about the historicity of the event. Clear sign that the driving force for the Gospel writers was not to describe historical events, but rather to make theological points. I am convinced that the whole Passion story is a literary invention and bears no historical data.

03-07-2008, 07:11 AM	#17
ph2ter Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Europe Posts: 219	Purim Besides Yom Kippur and Passover, also another Jewish holiday is probably connected with the Passion story. Philo recorded incident with Carabas when the populace of Alexandria insulted Agrippa upon his visit there by dressing up an idiot, Carabas, as a mock king. The similarity of the names Carabas and Barabbas makes it tempting to speculate that behind both is a scapegoating ritual in which one man is installed as a mock-king and then executed. That resembles the mock king of the Saturnalia, but still more closely the treatment of the mock king of the Babylonian Sacaea. The Greek historian Dio Chrysostom speaks of an annual king of the Sacaea: "They take one of the prisoners condemned to death and make him sit on a royal throne; they dress him in royal robes... but in the end they undress him, scourge him and hang him.". This was probably connected with an ancient fertility cult. The Jewish festival of Purim in its main features is probably a continuation of the Babylonian Sacaea. Suggestion is that the Jews, in borrowing the festival, may have copied from the Babylonians the practice of putting to death at that date a malefactor, who, after masquerading as Mordecai, in a crown and royal robe, was hanged or crucified in the character of Haman. The resemblance between the hanged Haman from the Book of Esther and the crucified Christ struck the early Christians and whenever the Jews destroyed an effigy of Haman they were accused by their Christian neighbours of deriding the most sacred mystery of the Christian faith. The practice was well known under the Roman empire, for in the year 408 A.D. the emperors Honorius and Theodosius issued a decree commanding the governors of the provinces to take care that the Jews should not burn effigies of Haman on a cross at one of their festivals. In the Greek translation of the Septuagint as well as in Flavius Josephus Haman’s gallows was interpreted as a cross, and the execution of him was described, in effect, as a true and proper crucifixion. Haman, who, in the Biblical text is referred to as talui, "the hanged one", was confused with the the crucified Christ. According to the great English anthropologist James George Frazer, Christ died while playing the role of Haman (the dying god) in a drama of Purim in which (Jesus) Barabbas, the double of Jesus of Nazareth, played the part of Mordechai (the god that resurges). In the model of the god that dies and is reborn, Haman is said to have played the part of death and Mordechai that of life, while the celebration of Purim is said to constitute the Hebraic ritual of death and resurrection.

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

03-03-2008, 09:11 AM	#11
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Please don't let the language in this forum become overly inflammatory or personal. DtC, Moderator, BC&H

03-04-2008, 08:38 AM	#14
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	IIRC, Crossan discusses the connection between the Passion and the two goats ritual but I don't recall which book. I think it was The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (or via: amazon.co.uk).

03-05-2008, 12:51 AM	#16
ph2ter Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Europe Posts: 219	Also interesting book The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity by Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.