Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 12-10-2009, 06:42 AM

It seems to me that the crucifixion story is a complete and satisfying narrative in itself and the the resurrection story is an add-on or afterthought.

Matthew seems to preserve a perfectly logical and tight ending to the original story:

Quote:

27Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. 28They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, 29and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said. 30They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. 31After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

32As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. 33They came to a place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). 34There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it. 35When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.[b] 36And sitting down, they kept watch over him there. 37Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 38Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!"

41In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42"He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' " 44In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[d]

47When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."

48Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."

50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Matthew now adds a lot of extraneous material. Mark gives us the next and closing line:

Quote:

15.39And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"

The only problem left is the use of the term "the Son of God". It makes more sense to suppose that the term "a son of God" was in the original. "A son of God" would be referring to anybody who obeyed God, as opposed to the concept of "The Son of God" suggesting a biological relationship.

The problem is that the story is still a construct based on Hebrew scriptures.
Let us take out the passages that refer to and are almost certainly derived from Hebrew scriptures. All we have left is this report:

Quote:

33They came to a place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). . (from Mark) 15.25And it was the third hour, when they crucified him...15.33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour...15.37And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last. 15.39And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the [a] Son of God!"

Even when we strip out the passages that are brought into the text from Hebrew scriptures, we are getting a story that is mythological in nature. A man is crucified, the earth goes dark, the man who crucifies him admits that he was a holy man (a son of god).

However, the exclamation by the soldier seems designed to prove that the man who was crucified was a holy man. One can imagine two situations that would lead to such a story: 1) a man was actually crucified and someone is trying to prove that this particular crucified man was holy and therefore writes this myth about the man or 2) The writer is trying to make the general point that sometimes holy people (sons of God) get crucified, so he is using this fictional/mythological story to illustrate his point. The point would be that because a person is crucified, it does not necessarily mean that the person was bad or unholy.

Which do people think is more probable and why?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

show_no_mercy · 12-10-2009, 06:52 AM

It's highly unlikely that a centurion would declare that Jesus was the son of God - that was the titled used for Roman emperors. Meaning that this centurion just placed Jesus on the same footing as Roman emperors; Augustus being the first person to have this title.

Quote:

Divi filius is a Latin phrase meaning "Son of God", and was a common title of a Roman Emperor. After the Senate recognised Julius Caesar as a divinity of the Roman state, as Divus Iulius on January 1, 42 BC, his great-nephew Octavian (the future Emperor Augustus) styled himself Divi filius, and printed the phrase on Roman coins. The title was also carried by Augustus's successors, Tiberius, Nero and Domitian.

PhilosopherJay · 12-10-2009, 10:07 AM

Hi show_no-mercy,

Yes, the line by the Roman soldier is clearly part of a tale and not a sound bite for the six o'clock news.

According to the Catholic site Advent:

Quote:

The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).

The leaders of the people, kings, princes, judges, as holding authority from God, were called sons of God. The theocratic king as lieutenant of God, and especially when he was providentially selected to be a type of the Messias, was honoured with the title "Son of God"

As I have reconstructed the original lines, there is no mocking, which I take to be part of the design of the later authors to show the death as related to Hebrew Scriptures. However we may take the line about Jesus being a King as part of the original story and not intended to be mocking. At the same time, we have the two robbers also crucified with Jesus. This seems intended to mock Jesus by associating him with robbers. John's Gospel does not say they were robbers but just two others. Therefore, we may take it as being in the original and not intended as mocking. Therefore, perhaps we can reconstruct the original this way without referring it to Hebrew Scriptures.

Quote:

33They came to a place called Golgotha
which means The Place of the Skull. ..
[from John] 19.18 There they crucified him,
and with him
two others, one on either side,
and Jesus between them
[from Mark] 15.25And it was the third hour, when they crucified him...
15.26 And the inscription of the charge against him
read, "The King of the Jews."...
15.33 And when the sixth hour had come,
there was darkness over the whole land
until the ninth hour...
15.37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry,
and breathed his last.
15.39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him,
saw that he thus breathed his last,
he said, "Truly this man was the [a] Son of God!"

In this case, the tale is ironic. It turns out that Jesus really was the king of the Jews, and the term "son of god" refers to him being a real King, exactly what the accusation read.
The question is, are we correct in reading this in a non-mocking way, or is it an add-on entended to show the mocking of the Messiah.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

It's highly unlikely that a centurion would declare that Jesus was the son of God - that was the titled used for Roman emperors. Meaning that this centurion just placed Jesus on the same footing as Roman emperors; Augustus being the first person to have this title.

Quote:

Divi filius is a Latin phrase meaning "Son of God", and was a common title of a Roman Emperor. After the Senate recognised Julius Caesar as a divinity of the Roman state, as Divus Iulius on January 1, 42 BC, his great-nephew Octavian (the future Emperor Augustus) styled himself Divi filius, and printed the phrase on Roman coins. The title was also carried by Augustus's successors, Tiberius, Nero and Domitian.

Toto · 12-10-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It seems to me that the crucifixion story is a complete and satisfying narrative in itself and the the resurrection story is an add-on or afterthought.

...

Possibly complete, but hardly satisfying.

If the Son of God dies on the cross, why would the centurion's comments be anything other than mocking? Why would he think that the crucified criminal was the Son of God or the King of the Jews or anyone special?

PhilosopherJay · 12-10-2009, 12:09 PM

Hi Toto,

I take it that the darkness on the Earth for three hours would be the sign that the crucified man was a favorite of God. The Centurion would just be the representative of the Romans admitting that they had made a mistake by executing King Jesus. The author is simply putting the punchline of the story into the mouth of the Centurion. The punchline is that the guy they executed was a holy man (son of god) as evidenced by the darkness at midday.

I'm still not sure about the King-of-the-Jews line or the two-others-crucified men line. They do seem part of the mockery motif designed to show off Jesus' fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture. However, when we strip them of their surrounding context, this becomes ambiguous. Obviously the later, come-down-from the cross and gambling-for-clothes lines are from scripture. The two-others and King-of-the-Jews lines may have been more neutral and only later used as part of a proof from Hebrew scripture motif.

I'm really trying to determine if there is a coherent underlying story when we take out the Hebrew scripture motif. If there is, then that is the source story. Then we just need to figure out where it comes from. If there isn't, then we can assume that the writers started from the scriptures to create their crucified character.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It seems to me that the crucifixion story is a complete and satisfying narrative in itself and the the resurrection story is an add-on or afterthought.

...

Possibly complete, but hardly satisfying.

If the Son of God dies on the cross, why would the centurion's comments be anything other than mocking? Why would he think that the crucified criminal was the Son of God or the King of the Jews or anyone special?

show_no_mercy · 12-10-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In this case, the tale is ironic. It turns out that Jesus really was the king of the Jews, and the term "son of god" refers to him being a real King, exactly what the accusation read.
The question is, are we correct in reading this in a non-mocking way, or is it an add-on entended to show the mocking of the Messiah.

I think to the centurion, as a character in the context of Mark 15, it was mocking. But the reader knows that his mocking tone is ironically telling the truth, just like the mocking guards before Jesus was executed.

It's unknown whether the centurion saw the curtain of the temple split in two. Then again, why would the centurion care about the Jewish temple?

Back Again · 12-10-2009, 02:09 PM

Interesting post, Jay. Your take is that there could be original source material (perhaps historic) which provides details and a framework for the crucifixion story in the gospels. The gospel accounts, however, have been tweaked in order to seemingly fulfill out-of-context prophecy from Hebrew scripture. I'm curious if this is something you came up with independently. I have not seen this particular twist being discussed here or anywhere else.

Clivedurdle · 12-10-2009, 02:47 PM

Interesting discussion of this here

Quote:

Following the same line of reasoning, the fact that Jesus asked for poison and said Peractum est implies that the entire passion of Jesus is self-chosen suffering. According to Seneca, if Jesus had not decided to ask for poison, one would have seen him as a victim: a victim of the hostility of Jewish leaders, of the politics of Pilate, and further of the treachery of Judas and the wavering of Peter.

By asking for poison, Jesus changed the entire passion into a voluntary act, which was the fulfillment of his entire life, the crowning of his mission.

http://www.nazarenus.com/3-4-lastwords.htm

aa5874 · 12-10-2009, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The problem is that the story is still a construct based on Hebrew scriptures.
Let us take out the passages that refer to and are almost certainly derived from Hebrew scriptures. All we have left is this report:

Quote:

33They came to a place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). . (from Mark) 15.25And it was the third hour, when they crucified him...15.33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour...15.37And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last. 15.39And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the [a] Son of God!"

Even when we strip out the passages that are brought into the text from Hebrew scriptures, we are getting a story that is mythological in nature. A man is crucified, the earth goes dark, the man who crucifies him admits that he was a holy man (a son of god).

But, if we are dealing with passages which were lifted from Hebrew Scripture without regard for context then even "the sixth hour darkness over the earth" may have been lifted from the book of Job or Isaiah.

Job 5:14 -

Quote:

They meet with darkness in the daytime, and grope in the noonday as in the night.

Isaiah 60.2

Quote:

2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

Now, even idea of the utterance of Jesus appears to originate from Psalms 22.1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

However, the exclamation by the soldier seems designed to prove that the man who was crucified was a holy man. One can imagine two situations that would lead to such a story: 1) a man was actually crucified and someone is trying to prove that this particular crucified man was holy and therefore writes this myth about the man or 2) The writer is trying to make the general point that sometimes holy people (sons of God) get crucified, so he is using this fictional/mythological story to illustrate his point. The point would be that because a person is crucified, it does not necessarily mean that the person was bad or unholy.

But, it is reasonable to assume that if many many Jews were crucified that many holy men were also executed in that fashion. What could have been special about Jesus?

Simon BarCocheba, considered the Messiah, fought and died to save the Jews from their enemies and he was NOT deified.

If a Jew was really crucified there would probably be no story at all to tell. Another Jew was crucified, perhaps one of thousands.

spamandham · 12-10-2009, 09:18 PM

Perhaps the ending was left at his death, precisely because the dying/rising god was such an overdone meme already. ...a surprise ending.

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

12-10-2009, 02:09 PM	#7
Back Again Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Detroit Metro Posts: 705	Interesting post, Jay. Your take is that there could be original source material (perhaps historic) which provides details and a framework for the crucifixion story in the gospels. The gospel accounts, however, have been tweaked in order to seemingly fulfill out-of-context prophecy from Hebrew scripture. I'm curious if this is something you came up with independently. I have not seen this particular twist being discussed here or anywhere else.

12-10-2009, 09:18 PM	#10
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	Perhaps the ending was left at his death, precisely because the dying/rising god was such an overdone meme already. ...a surprise ending.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.