Toto

1. Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire, and would have been used by Pilate in communicating with Rome. Koine Greek was the "lingua franca" (there's a little joke in there, isn't there?) that was used for common communication throughout the empire. When Mel Gibson made his movie, he had his Roman soldiers speaking Latin, which was criticized, because they were more likely to have spoken Koine Greek.

2. The gospels are not 4 independent sources. No one seriously thinks that. Some think that John might be an independent source, but that is a hard argument to make, since gJohn is the least historical sounding gospel.

3. The problems with the historicity of the charges against Jesus are discussed here in an essay by James Still. Still agrees with you that Jesus was guilty of sedition, but points out the problems - the Sanhedrin charged him with blasphemy, and there is nothing blasphemous about claiming to be the King of the Jews; and then

Toto

And do you know that Simon was also known as "the Runt" - and Paul translates to "the Runt?" That's how Simon was referred to, as the opposite of Magnus.

aa5874

Well, the question can now be asked "How does the personal beliefs of the writers that Jesus was crucified [b] make ANYTHING in the NT true?"

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written anonimously, long after the supposed crucifixion, up to about one hundred years, according to a source. See www.earlychristianswritings.com

Why do you think that whatever you BELIEVE is true MUST be true?

The repetition of the 4 gospel writers that Jesus was crucified does NOT confirm a single thing about Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, except the repetition.

thentian

I'm an atheist, so I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, of course. Where the gospels make fantastic or ridiculous claims, they are to be distrusted (strongly!) for that reason. But that all the mumbo-jumbo that is christianity stems from someone by the name of Jesus having been crucified seems plausible to me. And I also find it plausible that he was some kind of spiritual leader who claimed to be on a mission from God. There are enough people of that ilk around today, so why not then? Later, someone got it into his/her head that Jesus was still alive. Maybe Mary talked to a gardener at the gravesite who said something along the lines of "his spirit lives on", (Gardeners tend to say weird things like that! :Cheeky and it all grew from there (idle speculation!).

I'm not sure how popular the Quelle theory is these days. I think it is interesting, but the clinching evidence seems to be missing.

The story about the inscription on the cross seems like a bit of an oddity to me. Does it point to jesus being more of a political person than a religious one?

Solitary Man

Not always true. Greek had fully permeated the upper class, so that some communication was in Greek. This is especially true of the official monuments in the provinces.

Being the least historical is not an argument against independence. There are actually three independent sources, not four: Q, Synoptic material, and John.

That the Sanhedrin charged him is most likely a later invention to avert the blame from the Romans and instead place it upon the Jews.

thentian

I didn't know that about koine greek. You learn something every day!

But who told Pilate that this person was "Christ"? I don't think Jesus ever referred to himself that way, and I doubt his enemies would. (And the disciples weren't present at the trial.) Did anyone at that time refer to Jesus as "Christ"?

Ben C Smith

The Migne version of Saint Augustine, Homilies on John 7.1, has Simon Magnus. Either Augustine is responsible for this or Migne is; and neither of these gentlemen was a rookie.

I daresay I still like the interpretation offered by Gundry.

Ben.

FathomFFI

Correct on all counts. Saved me the trouble of posting all that.

:wave:

Solitary Man

At the end of the day, it's way too easy to see who the rookie is.

Solitary Man

No problem. Some scholars have posited special Matthean (M) and Lukan (L) material, and I've found some merit to the argument, but just how much it's nearly impossible to tell without more study and analysis.

I'd rather group it my way, Q (attested independently by both Matthew and Luke), Synoptic (independently attested chiefly by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Thomas), and the Johannine material (attested both by John and the Egerton Gospel).

There is some overlap, which in my opinion makes the strength of the material all the more stronger. It was posited that Synoptic material and Johannine material overlapped considerably without knowledge of the actual gospels. Egerton may or may not confirm this, depending on what Egerton is, however. Some see Thomasine dependence on Matthew, but I think it's better seen as intertextuality between Matthew and Thomas after both of their creation.

And if April DeConick is right that the core of Thomas is a translation from Aramaic, I think we have a solid case for genuine tradition far predating Mark, utterly abolishing the "Mark is fiction" argument for good.