Freethought & Rationalism Archive

neilgodfrey · 01-10-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Another common reason is the line in 4.10 about Jesus being silent as if he had no pain. But Crossan rightly points out that the same motif is present in Martyrdom of Polycarp 8.3, and nobody suspected Polycarp of being a docetic phantom.

You're right. 4.10 is one of the main reasons for thinking it docetic. (Was typing from failing memory yesterday -- knew there was something else there.) Critics of this view support the english translations that emphasize his silence "as if" he had no pain. That to me sounds closer to good Stoicism than it does to Docetism.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Malachi151 · 01-10-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

You're right. 4.10 is one of the main reasons for thinking it docetic. (Was typing from failing memory yesterday -- knew there was something else there.) Critics of this view support the english translations that emphasize his silence "as if" he had no pain. That to me sounds closer to good Stoicism than it does to Docetism.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

There is precedent for this though:

Quote:

Chapter 5:
2. And when Isaiah was being sawn in sunder, Belchira stood up, accusing him, and all the false prophets stood up, laughing and rejoicing because of Isaiah.
3. And Belchira, with the aid of Mechembechus, stood up before Isaiah, [laughing] deriding;
4. And Belchira said to Isaiah: 'Say, "I have lied in all that I have spoken, and likewise the ways of Manasseh are good and right.
5. And the ways also of Belchira and of his associates are good."
6. And this he said to him when he began to be sawn in sunder.
7. But Isaiah was [absorbed] in a vision of the Lord, and though his eyes were open, he saw them (not).
8. And Belchira spoke thus to Isaiah: "Say what I say unto thee and I will turn their hearts, and I will compel Manasseh and the princes of Judah and the people and all Jerusalem to reverence thee.
9. And Isaiah answered and said: "So far as I have utterance [I say]: Damned and accused be thou and all they powers and all thy house.
10. For thou canst not take [from me] aught save the skin of my body."
11. And they seized and sawed in sunder Isaiah, the son of Amoz, with a wooden saw.
12. And Manasseh and Belchira and the false prophets and the princes and the people [and] all stood looking on.
13. And to the prophets who were with him he said before he had been sawn in sunder: "Go ye to the region of Tyre and Sidon; for for me only hath God mingled the cup."
14. And when Isaiah was being sawn in sunder, he neither cried aloud nor wept, but his lips spoke with the Holy Spirit until he was sawn in twain.
- The Martyrdom of Isaiah, ~2nd century BCE

I'm thoroughly convinced that all of these stories (Jewish apocalyptic writings) are related and build off of an on-going tradition, borrowing from and building on each other with each successive generation.

neilgodfrey · 01-14-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

There is precedent for this (Addressing my reference to Gospel of Peter's Jesus being silent on the cross as if he felt no pain) though:

Quote:

5.14. And when Isaiah was being sawn in sunder, he neither cried aloud nor wept, but his lips spoke with the Holy Spirit until he was sawn in twain.
- The Martyrdom of Isaiah, ~2nd century BCE

I'm thoroughly convinced that all of these stories (Jewish apocalyptic writings) are related and build off of an on-going tradition, borrowing from and building on each other with each successive generation.

GPeter's Jesus is said to be silent (4.10), yet the Martyrdom of Isaiah says his lips spoke with the Holy Spirit (tongues?). The Gospel of Peter here ties Jesus' silence directly with the immediate context of slaughter in Isaiah 53.7 -- unlike the canonical depictions of Jesus' partial silence at his trial. Isa 53.7:

Quote:

He was oppressed and afflicted yet he opened not his mouth; he was led as a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before her shearers is silent so he opened not his mouth.

The canonical gospels all have Jesus speaking at his trials and only deciding to be silent after he has said his piece.

So does the GPeter version indicate a later and more adept attempt to weave the Isa.53.7 scripture into the account? Or do the canonical gospels represent a later awkward forced-fit of the scripture into a revised account?

The same questions arise in relation to Judas and Herod in comparing the Gospel of Peter with the canonical gospels:

Judas can be seen as an awkward intrusion into the canonical gospel narrative for a number of narrative reasons, such as lack of motive for his action in the original telling and the complete lack of necessity for such a betrayal in order for the well-known and recognized Jesus to be arrested.

The Gospel of Peter appears to avoid any such messiness since it indicates there was no Judas betrayal -- all 12 are in mourning apparently together after the crucifixion (4.59).

Does the Slavonic Josephus Testimonium Flavianum point back to the missing plot element that explains this? There it is Pilate who for a 30 talent bribe betrays Jesus by handing him over to the Jewish authorities to execute -- just as we read happens in the Gospel of Peter, and Justin Martyr.

So the question to be asked is which is morel likely to be the earlier? The account that is the more or the less coherent within its narrative?

(I have written this up just recently on my blog with a little more detail than I have included here.)

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.