ApostateAbe

Larkin31, great, I think I found it in Jesus: a revolutionary biography (or via: amazon.co.uk), published in Google books. On pages 126-127:

What exactly made crucifixion so terrible? The three supreme Roman penalties were the cross, fire, and the beasts. What made them supreme was not just their inhuman cruelty or their public dishonor, but the fact that there might be nothing left to bury at the end. That bodily destruction was involved in being cast into the fire or thrown to the beasts is obvious enough. But what we often forget about crucifixion is the carrion crow and scavenger dog who respectively croak above and growl below the dead or dying body. Martin Hegel, once again, reminds us of that terrible reality. His book, which is a catalog of the writings of Greco-Roman authors on the subject of crucifixion, quotes, for example, "fastened [and] nailed . . . [as] evil food for birds of prey and grim pickings for dogs" on page 9, "feed the crows on the cross" on page 58, and "hung . . . alive for the wild beasts and birds of prey" on page 76.

I was appreciating Crossan until he relied on secondary sources, so now I have to look up Martin Hengel, whoever he is. A footnote says,

Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977)

Lucky for me, that book is in Google Books, too. Page 9 says that the quote about "grim pickings" (I love that phrase) is from a "didactic astrological poem" by Pseudo-Manetho. I think I'll have to do an Interlibrary Loan to get a book containing that poem, so I think I'll stop here. Thanks!

Larkin31

You're welcome. Unfortunately, rather gruesome! Those Romans were NASTY imperial rulers....

Elijah

There is a fair amount of mention in the church fathers about Socrates and Plato. Justin the Martyr and Clement of Alexandria mention them the most. The header on the 10th chapter of Justin’s 2nd Apology is “Christ compared with Socrates”. I don’t know where the heading originated but there was certainly an influence of ideas going on there to the point where the Christians aren’t arguing that they were influenced by Greeks but that the Greeks originally got some of the ideas from the Jews.

I just think it’s easy to pull up scripture after an event and try to interpret it as prophetic of an event in history not only with the bible but with Nostradamus obviously. Not that I don’t believe that there is elements added to make him seem more like the Messiah like being the seed of David and miracles. I just don’t think that type of thinking should be used as a strict rule to interpreting everything in the Gospel because it can work the other way, where something obscure like him not speaking up can be cited in the middle of a prophecy where as you mentioned has other things that don’t correspond like the burial and kids.

Maybe if I was starting with a mythical story starting point (not saying you are) it would make more sense that he wasn’t defending himself because he was trying to fulfill prophecy . In a story that kind of flat characterization may exist but a just individual being tried back then is probably going to consider the most famous instance of someone like himself being tried and if he, like the guy previous to himself decided that it’s not the proper thing to defend yourself, then you have to consider there is an influence there. It would be a huge coincidence if Jesus didn’t defend himself in the same manner solely on the interpretation of a passage in Isaiah and not because he was familiar with the story. I’m not saying that in the situation he is necessarily oblivious to the passage or the passage hasn’t influenced him but to think it’s the sole thing driving that scene just doesn’t seem likely.

I agree that the myth side of Christianity can be attributed to the wishful thinking, exaggerations and people taking things too literal but there is more going on in Christianity then just trying to make him look like he is fulfilling prophecy. That’s just how they are trying to validate him since he didn’t do what was expected of the Messiah. The reason he did what was unexpected is that he was exposed to some new ideas that helped him or them to develop a new concept of the messiah which looks a bit like Plato and Socrates’ idea of a philosopher instead of a warrior king. Coincidence?

spamandham

There's nothing unlikely about some dude named Paul writings letters, for sure. But this particular Paul plays a foundational role in the Church. What his pen writes has authority. This is *why* at least half of the letters are forgeries.

Now look at the other letters. They are letters to various churches. Either someone went around collecting up letters he wrote and presumably had given to those churches, Paul had copies made, or perhaps the letters never were delivered to those churches because they are also inauthentic. Perhaps they are akin to "this is what Paul would have to say to those obnoxious Galatian heretics"

If I have a pile of foreign currency delivered to me by a stranger I've never met nor know anything about, and I have a way to tell that half the pile is counterfeit, I'm going to assign a high probability of counterfeit to the other half of the pile. I might be wrong, but that's the safer bet.

bacht

That's interesting. Hellenistic philosophy adopted the convention of referring to Socrates as the philosopher, the archetype of the man of integrity who dies for the sake of truth. But in the Apology he isn't silent before his accusers, and he comments after the jury vote about how close the verdict was (incidentally this trial report is much more plausible than the Passion story). And of course Jesus was Son of God, not just an ordinary teacher or prophet.

Elijah

The silence of both individuals is relative to what their followers believed they could have said, especially in the case of Socrates, who is recorded as speaking out during his trial more but is also on record for why a philosopher should not resort to rhetoric for defending his life while on trial.

The son of God is the Word or Logos or Reason or Christ, which Jesus was considered a manifestation of. An anthropomorphic understanding of God giving birth to another anthropomorphic god is not what they are talking about. Here is Justin (1st Apology) comparing what Socrates was doing using reason to Jesus personifying Reason itself.

“And when Socrates endeavoured, by true reason and examination, to bring these things to light, and deliver men from the demons, then the demons themselves, by means of men who rejoiced in iniquity, compassed his death, as an atheist and a profane person, on the charge that he was introducing new divinities; and in our case they display a similar activity. For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue.”

Here is him clarifying the Christ as the first born spiritual aspect of the universe and the man born later, who personifies that aspect, which seems to give so many people problems and causes them to think that Jesus the individual existed before the beginning of time.

“But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible — let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably. But who, through the power of the Word, according to the will of God the Father and Lord of all, He was born of a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent man will be able to comprehend from what has been already so largely said. And we, since the proof of this subject is less needful now, will pass for the present to the proof of those things which are urgent.”

This concept of a man personifying reason and connecting to god via reason comes from Platonic philosophy as far as I can tell.

ApostateAbe

The model of the gospels being intended as prophecy fulfillment does have its limits, I know. If something is likely and normal to happen, or if Christians plainly have another reason to believe a certain element that happens to match prophecy, then we don't need to attribute the elements to a motivation of prophecy fulfillment. There are just a bunch of weird things within the Jesus story (the silence before accusations, casting lots, burial with the rich, resurrection) that would be unlikely to be explained if it were not for perceived Old Testament prophecy. Isaiah 53 is explicitly quoted in the gospel of John (no such thing for Socrates until the second century, as you said), so Jesus is identified as the so-called "suffering servant," and so we know that early Christians wanted to match the story of Jesus to it. If Jesus was NOT told to be silent before accusations, then careful readers and listeners would think, "Wait a minute, there is a mismatch." Given that there was an explicit agenda to match Jesus with the "suffering servant," I take is unlikely that a silence before accusations would NOT be included.

ApostateAbe

Good point. If some stranger out of nowhere gives you two sets of hundred-credit bills, then the known counterfeit nature of one set throws greater probability on the claim that the other set is also a counterfeit. Why would some dude give you so much valuable money? I take a better comparison to be finding a collection of hundred-credit bills scattered around in various locations, because that is the situations with the Pauline letters.

Counterfeit letters tend to show a point of view that doesn't match the author. For example, a known counterfeit letter is the second epistle of Peter. In 2 Peter 3:3-8, the author makes a defense against future mockers who will make fun of Christians because the apocalyptic prophecy remains unfulfilled despite all of their fathers dying. To Peter himself, this would have been preposterous--Jesus will return soon enough, because he very clearly said so. For a counterfeit letter to be taken as authentic by critical observers, it takes saying things that are embarrassing or irrelevant to the counterfeit author and his intended audience, which isn't easy.

bacht

There are important differences between the two cases. Socrates was an old man, and disinclined to relocate to another city (if banished, thus he chose execution). Also he had some experience in the Athenian military which I've seen argued to be one source of hostility towards him, another being his association with the deposed and disgraced democratic faction under Pericles and after.

As you know I don't believe the gospel bio. Jesus' death at the hands of spiritual beings (archons, demons, whatever) is sufficient for me. Your concept of Reason personified doesn't bring me any closer to accepting an HJ.

Elijah

I think you have an unrealistic expectation of evidence in regards to influence here. Here’s a hypothetical. Suppose we had document that showed Mithra behaving in the same way during a trial and we knew that Mithracism was culturally impacting the Jews at the time. You would refuse to believe there was an influence in the behavior of Jesus in the story unless someone, in basically the NT itself, says that Jesus is just doing a Mithra impersonation. That’s unrealistic to expect because it belittles the event and the man they are discussing. It’s not like when Justin wrote Plato down the first time that was the beginning of the Greek philosophy’s influence on the Jews.

The reason Isaiah was being pushed was because it was necessary to help validate Jesus. “Hey he just wants to be a Jewish Socrates” doesn’t help the cause of establishing him as the Messiah. "Hey we found a prophecy" taken out of context that kind of fits what he did, does help with certain people who believe in prophecies and that’s why it’s included early.

I think if the writer was just including what he wanted to fulfill prophecy then he would have just made him absolutely quiet instead of not exactly fulfilling the prophecy. Same with his burial and his children. Lost me on the “If Jesus was NOT told to be silent” part.

Again I think prophecy is fit in afterwards and yea some of that was added into the narrative; I just don’t think fulfilling Isaiah is an example of a prophecy that needed to be fulfilled by the people and instead just something they found that was similar enough to try to establish some credibility for the man they were trying to push as the Messiah.