leonarde

It can be and is in our criminal courts. CSI and all that......

Diogenes the Cynic

The point is not whether pollen can be used as evidence, the point is that the pollen evidence claimed for the shroud was fraudulent.

Vorkosigan

John follows and expands on Mark in his reflection/ invention of the Crucifixion scene.

On the Markan scene:

T. E. Schmidt (1995) reads this as the beginning of a triumphal procession. The writer of Mark specifically states that they call together the whole cohort, difficult to believe for the mockery of a single prisoner. The use of the term praetorium may signify the local seat of power, but to a Roman reader it would recall the headquarters of the Praetorian guard in Rome, which always accompanied the triumphant leader. He concludes:

"We should consider the details here as chosen carefully to evoke a familiar occasion; namely, the gathering of the soldiery as the precursor of a triumph."(p6)

Schmidt focuses attention on the purple coak and the crown of thorns:

"Both the combination and the very presence of these symbols is striking. The wearing of purple was outlawed for anyone below equestrian rank. The only available robe of this kind would be that of Pilate, but it is inconceiveable that he would lend such a precious garment to be struck and spat upon by common soldiers. Along similarly practical lines, one wonders where in the courtyard of a palace thorns would be available to form a crown. Are we to imagine that the solders delayed their mockery while someone looked for a thorn bush nearby? The strangeness of these details, their likeness to the ceremonial garb of a triumphator, and their combination with other details of the narrative suggest a purpose rather than a coincidence."(p7)

Schmidt notes that Matthew, recognizing the problem, changes the robe's color to scarlet.

Schmidt has also related this to a widespread tradition of triumphs in antiquity. Here the Roman soldiers clothe Jesus in royal robes, just as the king or general entering the city. This tradition of triumphs originated as a celebration of the king's entrance into the city, after which he would appear as a god. Schmidt also notes that in Roman culture such anti-triumphs as depicted here in Mark were known. After his fall from power (31 CE) Sejanus was dragged before the Senate dressed in royal power, mocked and struck about the face. Similarly Vitellius, fallen from the position of Emperor, was led along the Sacred Way to the new Caesar, mocked and insulted by those lining the path. In many Roman triumphal processions human sacrifice, generally of captives, was practiced.

Such mock triumphs, as Vernon Robbins has noted, were a tradition throughout the ANE and Hellenistic.

Moving on, Schmidt argues that Simon of Cyrene represents the person who accompanied the sacrificial bull in the processions, carrying an enormous double-bladed ax, the instrument of the victim's death.

Schmidt then observes that Golgotha is more correctly translated as head than skull. That would make Golgotha the Place of the Head. A Roman legend records that in Rome when a temple was being built on a hill, a human head was found with its features still intact. According to the legend, the soothsayers then said this meant the hill would be the head of all Italy. The hill was thus named Capitoline Hill. The significance of this should not be missed: the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus on Capitoline Hill, the Capitolium, the placed named after the Death's Head, was the terminus of every Roman triumph.

Golgotha is a fiction; the mocking is a fiction; the Shroud is a fraud; the Shroudites are marks.

Vorkosigan

leonarde

But in fact we know that Paul preached a Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected DECADES before Mark was written (ie in the 35 to 70 AD range).
Funny how the Markian 'invention' so closely follows what the embryonic Christians were ALREADY preaching.........

Amaleq13

So closely follows? How hard is it to "follow" two words? You are exactly and entirely descriptive of what Paul has to say about the crucial tenets of his faith. Christ was crucified and Christ was resurrected.

Everything else in the passion narrative is Markan invention that doesn't follow from anything Paul preached.

leonarde

And your proof for that is what, exactly?

Amaleq13

Contrary to your assertion, there is nothing in Paul's gospel for the author of Mark to follow "so closely" except the two words crucified and resurrected. Paul's letters contain none of the details of Mark's passion and their origin in Hebrew Scripture is evident.

andrewcriddle

Although both Aramaic GLGLTHA (Heb GLGLTH) and Greek KRANION can certainly mean head rather than skull, their primary meaning is skull. (In the sense of rounded top of head not necessarily skullbone)

Standard for head in Hebrew and Aramaic is RA(Sh) and in Greek KEPhALH

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

That's why Mark was forced to invent every detail of the event out of scripture or his imagination.

Vorkosigan

leonarde

Posted by Amaleq:(I notice you gave NO evidence for your own assertion; you DIDN'T answer the question)
Those aren't just 'words'; they are an integral part of who Jesus of Nazareth was: historically AND theologically. In John they (the events down to some very small details like the head cloth being rolled up separately from the shroud itself) occupy a disproportionately large fraction of that Gospel. So 'John' "invented" lots of details not in Mark......if you already buy the 'Jesus Myth'........