Amaleq13

I don't know about that. It seems like a temporary illusion to me that doesn't change the ultimately questionable nature of the sacrifice at all. Makes for a great surprise when he wakes up three days later, though.

IMO, the best defense of the "ultimate sacrifice" concept is arguing that magically taking on the sins of the world was the significant factor.

Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps, instead, the crucifixion narrative was fabricated using the 22nd Psalm first as guideline and then as prooftext.

Magdlyn

You mean 1 1/2 days later...

Amaleq13

I don't understand how this would be an "instead". It seems more like an expansion (ie they didn't know what was said and they didn't know what happened).

I agree that both seem likely.

lulay

"The whole secret invocatory phrase, of which classical tradition brought down only the first part, was colloquial equivalent of an original Sumerian *E-LA-UIA, E-LA-UIA, LI-MASh-BA(LA)G-ANTA" (tHE sACRED mUSHROOM AND THE cROSS, J.Allegro)

so, it is very clear to me, the invisible man, that the 'crucifixtion' and the cry from 'Jesus' on it, was secretly referring to something OTHER than an actual human being who was 'God' in historical time calling out to errr his 'God'. none of that makes any sense. it is absurd and strictly for literalists. the PAGAN ancestors KNEW mythology wasn't to be taken literally as that is 'hostory' NOT mythology. no doubt there are historical elements in myth as Graves has shown, but the essence is a pointing to the individual's experience in NOW........what propaganda of literalism does is not liberate but stagnate, and it creates the evils of fundamentalsm

i even examine the cryptic parts of mythology, because they too alos can hold bias, and mainpulations. so you have to be careful what you believe

jbernier

The text is doing something very simple here: It is quoting and referencing (what in the canonical text is catalogued as) Psalm 22, which starts (oddly enough) with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." By referencing the first line the text is referencing the entire psalm. Now, let us look at this psalm. First, it is often cited as a "Messianic" psalm, in that it describes the suffering of someone faithful and loyal to God. The psalm, after 18 verses of description of that suffering, turns to talking about how the Lord will take his domain over the world and rule it in justice. In short the reference to the first line of the psalm is also a reference to the hope that lies beyond the suffering - indeed, that perhaps the suffering even references.

Chili

It was actually 3 days because Easter is the day on which evening never followed the day and is therefore celebrated for 2 days. This makes Sunday the seventh day instead of the first in Catholic theology. This is to be juxtaposed with Christmas which is the night on which the light of common day did not follow and is therefore also celebrated for two days but not necessarily on Sunday. Easter is celebrated for 2 days to indicate that the celestial light illuminates the day and therefore "the night shall be no more" (Rev.22:5).

Jayhawker Soule

It was poorly worded on my part. The intended difference was this: you seem to suggest a historical event embellished with dialogue while I find the reality of such an event event unnecessary to explain the reference to Psalms.

Amaleq13

Gotcha.

The suggestion of a historical event is linked to the reference to scholars since that is the assumption of the majority. The possibility of the entire thing being a fabrication is rather vaguely suggested by the closing phrase "if he said anything at all". I was trying to cover all the bases without turning it into a Jesus Myth issue.

I am often more "subtil" than the serpent but, as a result, less comprehensible.

aikido7

Historical scholar and former Jesus Seminar member John Crossan has said that when this version of Mark (or is it Matthew?) was written, the community of believers who did write it were smack dab in the midst of the Roman-Jewish war. A lot of believers in Mark's (Matthew's?) community were dying and the survivors obviously felt forsaken by God, because that's how you feel when you get murdered.

So, to buttress the beseiged community's experience, the Jesus they wrote about speaks directly to them and their experience (Fundamentalists and evangelicals do the same thing today with the political and cultural issues they believe they are beseiged with).

John's gospel--which was the last one to be written according to most mainstream scholars--has a highly-developed "Christology," so its Jesus is in total control ("It is finished!") and everything is going ahead on divine schedule. The entire mass of Roman soldiers falls down prostrate before the Nazarene rabbi during the arrest in the garden.

By the time the Forth Gospel was written and redacted, Jesus' crucifixion was not only totally ordained, but seemingly pain-free. It is very close to the heretical "Docetic" fallacy which was condemned by the early Church Fathers. The heresy claimed that Jesus only "seemed" to be human, but was really always God in disguise and thus always all divine.