GakuseiDon

Origins of the Passion Narrative

This paper was recently mentioned in passing on the Jesus Mysteries list:

Prophecy Historicized or History Scripturized? Reflections on the Origin of the Crucifixion Narrative by Mark Goodacre

Goodacre makes the common assumption that parts of the Passion Narrative were derived from Old Testament scripture (the "prophesy historicized" of Crossan), but makes the assumption that any part of the Narrative that cannot be traced back to a scriptural passage must have some historical core (using primarily the criterion of embarrassment.) He then tries to argue that even the parts that can be traced back to scripture may embody a historical core.

However, Goodacre ignores the possibility of other influences on the Passion Narrative. And that is... the influence of aliens from outer space!

Was Jesus an Extraterrestrial?

Was Jesus an Extraterrestrial? How else to explain these amazing similarities between the Jesus story and common UFO imagery?

Some selected quotes from the link:

"... in May 1999, Israeli historians researching ancient copies of the Apocrypha told the newspaper National Midnight Star that one translation of the Virgin Mary's conception after a visitation from God described a chilling tale which sounded very similar to the accounts of people who had undergone gynaecological examinations in UFO abduction experiences. When reporters pressed the codex researchers to comment further on their intriguing claims, but the historians were evidently advised by the religious authorities to withhold further interpretations of the timeworn texts."

"... [Jesus] himself said the Kingdom or realm he came from was 'not of this world'. He also maintained that his father was in the heavens, and he spent many lengthy periods in the vast isolation of the Sinai Desert, where he may have received the instructions for his revolutionary programme to change civilization. Perhaps this was the rendezvous point for meeting his extraterrestrial kin. There are many instances of luminous objects descending onto Jesus and shining rays at him."

"... in the early hours of that Sunday morning a being in 'snow-white clothes' with a light on its head as bright as lightning had descended from the low oppressive clouds and terrified the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Christ into stupefaction. This strange figure - assumed by the Jewish priests to be a heavenly being - an angel of some order - proceeded to push away the stone blocking the tomb's entrance with superhuman might. It was later revealed that two unearthly-looking men dressed in white clothes had been seen at the entrance of the tomb..."

Finally:

" The enigmatic men in white later vanished into the skies as mysteriously as they had appeared. Did they return to some mothership in Earth orbit? The ship that had been interpreted as the Star of Bethlehem?"

Personally, I'm convinced. There are just too many similarities to the modern UFO phenomena to be explained as mere coincidences. There's even a nice medieval picture of an Adamski UFO at the bottom of the link.

Also, keep in mind that according to Erich von Daniken, the Ancient Astronauts predate Philo. That is significant!

Toto

I seem to have failed to get some of you to take this seriously.

As a matter of fact, I am sure that the space alien explanation is a better explanation of Biblical events than the Christian one. It's just not very good.

Modern UFOology comes from a modern culture with a background of Christain imagery. It is not, in fact, ancient.

Philo, in contrast, wrote in the first half of the first century, in the same language that the Bible was written in. His philosophy was so close to Christian doctrine that later Christians thought he must have been a secret Christian (along with Seneca, Pilate's wife, and a host of other ancients, it's true.)

It looks like I will have to do a lot of typing to get the details of Leidner's work in front of you, and that will have to wait until I have some time.

Vinnie

That would depend on which Christian explanation you are referring to. There is more than one.

Vinnie

GakuseiDon

Yes, that's certainly true. I think the consensus is that Philo's writings did indeed influence the development of early Christianity, so looking at his other writings for possible influences makes sense.

I think really that's what's required, Toto. Showing the similarities in broad bulletin points really doesn't show anything. Philo mentions some elderly Jews were scourged and crucified - the NT says Jesus was scourged and crucified. Similarity? In general terms, sure - but how unlikely is that similarity to occur? If anything, I could spin it the other way and say that it validates the information in the NT - it shows that what we see in the NT is historically accurate.

You see, by resolving the information down to bulletin points, while (1) only showing the similarities, and (2) ignoring the dissimilarities, then presto! you can prove anything. But imagine if I only presented the dissimilarities - would that be fair?

Here is a website article on Flaccus that uses Philo's writing as a base: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m04...e+and+scholars

See if you can find any meaningful similarities to the NT there. Or should we just extract the similarities and ignore the rest?

Here is an extract from the well known Urban Myth website, snopes, on the "amazing similarities" between Lincoln and Kennedy: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm
Toto, there are similarities there. But to prove that they are meaningful, and not just coincidence, or representative of the general behaviour of the times, we need those detail you promised in your earlier post. So, when you get time, details please!

the_cave

There might be other arguments to make for your case, but this one is a dead end. The earthly crucificion was clearly an object of devotion at least as early as Constantine (c. 325), as his mother made a famous pilgrimage to Jerusalem to recover the True Cross--the origin of the Feast of the Holy Cross, September 14.

the_cave

I'm really not interested in the amulet, but the fact is that the online Catholic Encyclopedia is indeed the I believe 1914 edition. It's been my understanding that this was mostly carried out by traditionalist Catholics, who perhaps suspected the newer edition of harboring creeping modernity, it having been produced during the 60's, during and immediately following the second Vatican council, but probably copyright is one of the main reasons, if not the only one. I regret lacking access to the newer edition online, but the old one is still a wonderful resource for many things, and quite delicious to read at times--it has a flavor that so much of modern rhetoric lacks.

Evangelion

Toto -

*snip*

Well you've been presenting some disturbingly illogical conclusions here, so perhaps I'll need to wait a little longer for some evidence of that "logical thinking" which is alleged to be your forte.

*snip*

No, it is merely theorised. Learn the difference.

And for goodness' sake, please stop treating academic conjecture as if it's equivalent to objective evidence.

I agree with this to some extent. It is demonstrably true that Philo's work was highly regarded by many of the post-1st Century Christians, and it is equally true that his ideas were highly influential among them. But there is no evidence that the 1st Century Christians were influenced in this way.

Indeed, from the mid-2nd Century onwards, we see a gradual evolution of the logos concept into what would later become post-Nicene Christology. There is a clear and significant tension between the Christology of the Jewish NT authors and the Christology of the Hellenic philosopher-theologians who followed them. The former are said to possess "low" Christology, while the latter were responsible for what has come to be known as "high" Christology. The former consistently argue from Scripture; the latter show an increasing reliance on philosophical prepositions, unBiblical terminology and neo-Plantonic concepts.

It is demonstrably true that Philo influenced the post-1st Century Christians. But to suggest that this is equally true of the 1st Century Christians themselves, is to set oneself up for a hearty mocking.

Well no, it's not very different at all, since (a) you're using the same basic methodology (as previously noted), and (b) the source of Philo's own philosophical model was itself pagan, being derived from Plato. Philo was, if you recall, a neo-Platonist himself.

Or didn't you know that?

Well yes, it does indeed make it legitimate in the sense of constituting the legitimate development of an older tradition (namely Judaism) rather than an arbitrary belief system which was cobbled together on a rather ad hoc basis by plagiarising the works of alternative religions.

That depends on what you mean by "all of it." The earlier tradition of the Passion Narrative does indeed come from Jewish sources; to whit, the Messianic prophecies of Old Testament. But the source of the narrative which is presented as historical fact by the authors of the Gospels, is none other than historical fact itself.

To put it another way: the Gospel authors present a series of historical facts which they believe to have been prefigured by the Messianic prophecies of the OT.

Are we on the same page yet?

I agree that the Passion Narrative is derived from history, yes. I also believe that it was prefigured by the Messianic prophecies of the OT.

Well, don't be surprised if I treat this idea with the contempt it so clearly deserves.

R. O. T. F. L.

*ahem*

You mean my merciless dissection of Leidner's nonsensical hypothesis?

As previously noted in my dissection and subsequently emphasised by GakuseiDon, this is a positively laughable claim.

And why should John Crossan's opinion carry any weight with me, pray tell? I couldn't care less what he thinks. He could believe that there's a race of sapient purple cherry trees on Mars, and I still wouldn't be obliged to agree with him.

*snip*

There was nothing garbled about it, and I sincerely doubt that there would be many people here who would agree with such an assessment. My critique was logical, rational and methodical. Don't blame me if it left a welt.

I sincerely doubt it.

I would be fascinated to see these additional details.

Wow. Just when I thought this argument couldn't get any more pathetic, you raise the bar from "utterly ludicrous" to "wildly irrational."

If you continue to press your argument, I promise to rip it apart with my bare hands, scatter its remants to the four winds, pursue its mourners to the grave, and call down fire and brimstone upon its memorial.

Evangelion

*wiping tears of laughter from his eyes*

Please, Toto - no more!

It hurts! It hurts!

Toto

Laugh away, Ev. When the server settles down so I don't get bumped when I try to post and I get a few free hours, I will give you more than enough detail.

But your position seems to be shifting. First of all the Passion Narrative is found in the Scriptures. Then when you realized that would argue against its historicity, you try to save yourself - it was both historical and prophesied! How convenient.

The game we are playing here is: can you find secular facts that would allow a religiously neutral scholar to conclude that the Passion Narrative has a historical basis? Or is it just a statement of your faith that we can give the same respect to as the Scientologists mumbo-jumbo about Thetans?

The PN is an improbable jumble of unlikely events. Jesus is claimed to have cleared the Temple with a whip - something that took armed Roman soldiers a battle to do. Is there any reason for thinking that is a historical event, as opposed to a theological statement? The trial before the Sanhedrin is improbable. The character of Pilate, who can be swayed by a mob of Jews, is completely unlike the violent autocrat depicted in Josephus. The mockery scene makes little sense in the gospels. The crucifixion itself is unlike any other recorded - Jesus dies too quickly, and his body is taken down rather than being left up as other crucifixion victims were.

Why should you think any of this is historical? If you can find some possible literary precedents, would that not be a better explanation?

Evangelion

Toto -

Thanks, I will!

LOL, if it's anything like your previous efforts, hilarity will doubtless ensue.

You wish! Try reading my posts more carefully. Hell, I'll even explain it for you right here.

Ah, be very careful how you phrase that. I actually said it was prefigured by the OT Scriptures. Only in that sense can we say that it was "there."

If you recall, this is what I wrote in an earlier post:

• Just so I know what you mean here: how many details are you demanding? Which ones are they? How do you arrive at this list; by what methodology do you conclude that these must be the ones?

It is worth pointing out that I did not receive an answer to any of these questions. You simply dodged them. I would like an answer at your earliest convenience. (Preferably earlier.) Thankyou.

I went on to say:

• Nobody (not even the 1st Century Christians) claimed that all of the details of the Passion Narrative are found in the OT.
  
  But these points are:
  
• The Messiah would be betrayed.
  
• The Messiah would be humiliated, beaten and mocked.
  
• The Messiah would be slain for the sins of men.
  
• The Messiah would rise again on the third day.
  
• The apostle Paul even provides a summary for us:
  
  
  Acts 26:22-23.
  Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
  That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
  
  
  As far as Paul's concerned, that's what he's supposed to be proving on the basis of the OT revelation. He doesn't claim to have discovered every single detail of the Passion Narrative in the OT, and neither does anybody else.
  
  But all of the essentials are there, and that's the bottom line.

Now you are trying to shift the goalposts, which is exactly what I expected.

Well no, that doesn't argue against its historicity at all. You see, you didn't really read my posts properly in the first place. That's just part of the problem. The second problem is that you haven't even read the PN properly.

Um, hello, that has always been my position.

Your question...

• Are you claiming that all of it came from Jewish scriptures?

...was hopelessly vague, which is why I tried to get something specific out of you. Unfortunately, I did not receive it. Indeed, you failed to answer my questions, preferring to avoid them (for whatever reason.)

So I said:

• That depends on what you mean by "all of it." The earlier tradition of the Passion Narrative does indeed come from Jewish sources; to whit, the Messianic prophecies of Old Testament. But the source of the narrative which is presented as historical fact by the authors of the Gospels, is none other than historical fact itself.
  
  To put it another way: the Gospel authors present a series of historical facts which they believe to have been prefigured by the Messianic prophecies of the OT.

This has been my position right from the start, and it has not changed. The only thing which has changed, is the nature of your semantics.

Yep! I've got Lucian's reference to...

• ...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

I also have the Jewish commentators whose work has been previously cited on page 3 of this thread. (By me.) Which you ignored.

Oooh, it's more than just a statement of faith.

You can if you like. I won't mind.

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, me matey. We shall see.

That's not actually a part of the PN. Have you even read the material which you presume to criticise, or can I expect another series of peculiar errors, as per your mismanagement of Justin Martyr?

Uh... it's not a theological statement. It's a description of an event which was believed to have occurred. That doesn't make it "a theological statement." At the very most, it could be called "hearsay." And yes, is is indeed an "unlikely" event if your world view does not include the possibility of supernatural occurrances.

Fortunately, mine does.

Why?

Poppycock. Pilate was not merely "swayed by a mob of Jews"; he was trying to maintain law and order in the face of a very difficult situation. The Romans were always very touchy about the Jews, particularly when it came to matters of Jewish law (not to mention the possibility of a full-scale riot) and consequently preferred to err on the side of caution.

Why?

Nonsense.

• Jesus of Nazareth underwent Jewish and Roman trials, was flogged, and was sentenced to death by crucifixion. The scourging produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha.
  
  At the site of crucifixion, his wrists were nailed to the patibulum and, after the patibulum was lifted onto the upright post (stipes), his feet were nailed to the stipes. The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations.
  
  Accordingly death resulted primarily from hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia. Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side.
  
  Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicate that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.
  
  Source.

No problems here.

His body was taken down because the Jews had specifically requested the removal of all three bodies, due to the fact that the Sabbath was just around the corner.

Thus:

• John 19:31.
  The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was a high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

Again you demonstrate your ignorance of the PN. How in the world do you expect to maintain any credibility when you don't even know what the NT actually says?

Because (a) there's nothing remotely supernatural about it, (b) it's perfectly plausible, and (c) it is consistent with the customs and practices of the period. It has the hallmarks of a historical narrative, and I have never seen any good reason to dismiss it

No, why would it automatically constitute a better explanation?

Hell, before I could even consider such an option, I would require:

• Someone to explain why the Christians would run the risk of fabricating a story that could be easily refuted by anybody who was present at the time when the events were alleged to have occurred.
  
• A clear and unequivocal evidence for the plagiarism of an earlier narrative with identical components.
  
• A valid reason for rejecting the historicity of the PN as described in the Gospels.

There's probably more, but that's all I can think of, just off the cuff. (It's 4am, so I'm not really at my best right now.)

I am definitely not a morning person.