Psalms 22 and the synoptic Gospels

[juantoo3]

Luke 23:1 And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

Luke 23:3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

Luke 23:4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

Luke 23:5 And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.

Luke 23:6 When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean.

Luke 23:7 And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time.

Luke 23:8 And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

Luke 23:9 Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

Luke 23:10 And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him.

Luke 23:11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

Luke 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

Luke 23:13 And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,

Luke 23:14 Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

Luke 23:15 No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

Luke 23:16 I will therefore chastise him, and release him.

Luke 23:17 (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

Luke 23:18 And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas:

Luke 23:19 (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)

Luke 23:20 Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.

Luke 23:21 But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.

Luke 23:22 And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.

Luke 23:23 And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.

Luke 23:24 And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

Luke 23:25 And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

Luke 23:26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.

Luke 23:27 And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.

Luke 23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

Luke 23:29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

Luke 23:30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.

Luke 23:31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

Luke 23:32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.

Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Luke 23:35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

Luke 23:36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar,

Luke 23:37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

Luke 23:40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

Luke 23:41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Luke 23:44 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Luke 23:47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.

Luke 23:48 And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.

Luke 23:49 And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.

Luke 23:50 And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:

Luke 23:51 (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.

Luke 23:52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.

Luke 23:53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

Luke 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

Luke 23:55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.

Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

King James Version

[juantoo3]

OK, just starting to get a few study resources close at hand, but the first thing I keyed on looking over my Bibles at home is that the "My G-d, My G-d" text is missing from Luke (and John).

Now, as earlier pointed out by Brian and agreed by myself; Matthew was composed for a Jewish audience, Mark for a Roman audience and Luke for a Greek audience. Since the relevence of the reference to Psalms 22 would be lost on a crowd outside of a Jewish frame of mind, it is actually more than curious that it should be included for a Roman audience (and not for a Greek audience!).

The Romans were in power. Therefore, from a Roman perspective, all was well with their way of thinking (a lot of it based in Stoicism), and everybody else was inferior. Yes, there were those occasional flirtations with the exotic and obscure...like the penchant among the soldiers for Mithraism...but Roman ways were the top of the heap and everything else was second rate at best.

So the Romans had no reason to relate to anything Jewish. In fact, Palestine was such a royal pain in the backside that Rome would conduct two major wars within a hundred years, at the end of which anything that remotely resembled Judaism would be removed from the Holy Land, and at this time Christianity was no more than an obscure sect of Judaism.

So it is more than a little curious that a very Jewish reference should be included in a text intended for a Roman audience.

As curious to me, is that Luke neglects this very Jewish reference. The Greek angle was much more cosmopolitan and open and embracing. The "Greeks" loved everybody! Come one, come all! They revelled in novelty, they tried just about anything once...and if they liked it they tried it again. The Gospel of Luke is unmistakably the most detailed account in the Gospels, yet this passage that is so heart moving is noticably absent.

Curiouser and curiouser.

It's late and I need to go for now, but I think most anybody can see the variations between the KJV, Interlinear and Pesh!tta translations...at least I hope so, just on the first verse of Psalms 22 and Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. We can go over that next time, or perhaps somebody sees something else that catches their attention (like the word "unicorn" in the Psalms?).

[juantoo3]

Psalms 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? -KJV

Psalms 22:1 My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning. -Interlinear

Psalms 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou let me to live? And yet thou hast delayed my salvation from me, because of the words of my folly. -Pesh!tta

---

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? -KJV

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried (5656) with a loud voice, saying (5723) , Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that (5748) is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken (5627) me? -Interlinear

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said, Eli, Eli, lmana shabachthani! which means, My G-d, my G-d, for this I was kept! -Pesh!tta

---

St. Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? -KJV

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried (5656) with a loud voice, saying (5723) , Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is (5748) , being interpreted (5746) , My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken (5627) me? -Interlinear

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lemana, shabakthani! Which means, My G-d, my G-d, for this I was spared! -Pesh!tta

---

[juantoo3]

III. Recent Developments In Redaction Criticism

1. Methodological uncertainty in redaction criticism of Mark's Gospel. Doubts over the legitimacy of redactional work on Mark follow naturally from the lack of consensus on the proper working criteria to be employed in such a work. While pioneering work in applying redaction criticism to Mark began in 1956 (with W. Marxsen's Der Evangelist Markus),7 the question of proper working criteria was not adequately addressed. Yet many practitioners of Markan redaction criticism carried on without much expressed concern over the methodological difficulties involved in their discipline. The work that attempted to address this problem was R. H. Stein's Th.D. dissertation in 1968.8 This work was refined and presented in condensed article form in 1971.9

Stein is well aware of the additional difficulties involved in the investigation of a Markan redaction history over a Matthean or Lukan one. First, Mark does not state his purpose for writing (as Luke does in Luke 1:1–4). Second, Mark's sources are not available for comparison (as Matthew's and Luke's common source - Mark is [assuming Markan priority]).10 Third, Mark has "made our task more complicated … because he has ‘marcanized' the traditions, both oral and written, which were available to him."11 As a result, Markan vocabulary and style are not by themselves reliable indicators of Markan redaction.

Nevertheless, Stein proposes that Markan redaction may be investigated by means of the Markan (1) seams; (2) insertions; (3) summaries; (4) modification of material (detectable when Matthew and Luke appear to follow an older form of the tradition rather than Mark); (5) selection, (6) omission, and (7) arrangement of material; (8) introduction; (9) conclusion; (10) vocabulary; and (11) Christological titles. Of these eleven criteria, Stein highlights the value of investigating (1) seams; (2) insertions; (3) summaries; (4) modification, (5) selection, and (7) arrangement of material; (8) introduction;

[602]

(10) vocabulary; and (11) Christological titles. On the other hand, he sees little value in speculating about omissions of material (since we do not know what Mark had before him that he chose to omit) or in looking at Mark's conclusion (since Stein believes that the original ending of Mark is missing). He also sees no basis for speculating on the possible creation of pericopes from the hand of the evangelist. 12 Taken together, these recommendations form a coherent set of criteria for carrying out a restricted form of Markan redaction criticism.

"Recent Developments In Redaction Criticism: From Investigation Of Textual Prehistory Back To Historical-Grammatical Exegesis?" by Randall K. J. Tan

A rather interesting study touching on the redaction issues surrounding the Gospels...continues:

2. Abandonment of redaction criticism and replacement by literary criticisms. Strict editorial redaction (which continues to sort out redaction from tradition and locates the unique theology of the evangelist only in the redactional material) is in decline not only in redactional work on Mark but also in the Gospels in general (with the exception of the study of Q).25 The abandonment of redaction criticism and its replacement by a multiplicity of literary criticisms stems in part from the perceived methodological problems associated with applying redaction criticism to Mark.

same link reference, concludes:

We have surveyed the scene of recent developments in redaction criticism and found that two distinct disciplines are now commonly labeled as redaction criticism. On the one hand, we found that redaction criticism proper, which seeks to vigorously differentiate redaction from tradition, is fundamentally bankrupt. On the other hand, composition criticism's distinct purpose of discovering the patterns and emphases of the evangelists, as manifested in the Gospel texts as completed wholes, is both methodologically sound and fruitful. Indeed, when adopted with caution and critical awareness of the nature and goals of the discipline (as distinct from redaction criticism), composition analysis becomes, in practice, a welcome return to a grammatical-historical interpretation that seeks to ascertain authorial intent from the meaning expressed through the written language of the evangelists in the Gospel texts.

-Randall K. J. Tan

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:4 (December 2001) p. 599-614

[juantoo3]

How well do modern textual critics agree? An encyclopedic treatment of this issue is presented by the team of Kurt and Barbara Aland, who provide statistics as to both the percentage of variant free verses among the seven major editions of the Greek NT, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors). It is helpful to look at these [Alan.TNT, 29-30]:

Book---% of variant-free verses---# of variants per page
Matthew 59.9 / 6.8
Mark 45.1 / 10.3
Luke 57.2 / 6.9
John 51.8 / 8.5
Acts 67.3 / 4.2
Romans 75.5 / 2.9
1 Corinthians 75.7 / 3.5
2 Corinthians 78.1 / 2.8
Galatians 76.5 / 3.3
Ephesians 76.1 / 2.9
Philippians 70.2 / 2.5
Colossians 72.6 / 3.4
1 Thess. 68.5 / 4.1
2 Thess. 72.3 / 3.1
1 Timothy 81.4 / 2.9
2 Timothy 79.5 / 2.8
Titus 71.7 / 2.3
Philemon 76.0 / 5.1
Hebrews 77.2 / 2.9
James 61.6 / 5.6
1 Peter 66.6 / 5.7
2 Peter 52.5 / 6.5
1 John 72.4 / 2.8
2 John 61.5 / 4.5
3 John 73.3 / 3.2
Jude 72.0 / 4.2
Revelation 52.8 / 5.1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 62.9 equals 4999/7947 verses
The agreement here is quite astonishing, considering that this is the combined result of seven different teams and/or persons over an extended period of time. That all 7 editions completely agree on close to two-thirds of the NT is a striking indication of how much confidence we may have in our present text. (Though not given, the next statistics would show agreements on 6 out of 7, 5 out of 7, etc. - and if the trend above is followed, we might well reach that 99% agreement before going too far down the ladder!)

Is any matter of the Christian faith affected by any variant reading? This is the most important issue for the average believer, and the good news is this: No doctrine of Christianity is in the least dependent on ANY textual variant.

A major study of this issue has been performed by Ehrman [Ehr.OxC], who locates several orthodox-oriented corruptions of the NT text that were designed to halt illicit interpretations of verses by heretics. We shall take a special look at his study at the end of this section.

"Holding, you Christians are believing lies. Don't you know that the later church conspired to eliminate discrepancies and made purposeful changes to the text of the NT?"

We will look at this matter more closely when dealing with Ehrman's work; for the moment, let it only be said that textual conspiracies such as are often suggested would be practically impossible - there is no way that the church could have eliminated ALL known readings of a given text!

Beyond that, what is the direct evidence and data for textual corruption? 95% of the errors found in the NT text are recognized as unintentional [Patz.MNT, 138]. This includes confusion of similar letters, repetition of words or sentences, and just plain bad copying. The remaining 5% of errors includes revised spelling and grammar, harmonization of similar passages, elimination of textual difficulties, and, indeed, theological or doctrinal changes. However, let it not be said that there was some systematic or even informal conspiracy to change the NT text.

Textual Reliability of the New Testament by James Patrick Holding

Continued:

And now to the case presented by Bart Ehrman, which I feel warrants special attention. The basis of Ehrman's case - and it is a very good one - is that certain verses of the NT were altered in the second and third century, albeit with good intentions, to deflect heretics from foisting an unorthodox interpretation upon them. It is this sort of finding that leads some Skeptics (and even some Mormon critics) to claim that the NT cannot be classed with secular works in terms of textual reliability, because there was clearly so much textual infighting that would not occur over a secular work.

Generally there is little to find at fault with Ehrman's work. Many of his claims of intentional change are good; some require rather strained explanations or else plumb the depths of paranoia (as opposed to a much simpler idea that a change was the result of an accident). However, various critics have taken his material and run with it as though it renders the whole of the NT suspect; Ehrman himself draws far more cautious conclusions, and does not here make any argument for any theological view as correct, after the manner of Elaine Pagels in The Gnostic Gospels (though we will see if he does so in a newer book now out, Lost Christianities). Indeed, in an email to a reader of ours who requested clarification, Ehrman (who gave permission to use this quote) said:

I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world.
Thus one should be cautious of those who abuse Ehrman's conclusions.

An interesting paper that helps shed a little light on some of the textual criticism ongoing around the NT Gospels.

[Sancho]

So where are you going with this thread?

The evidence, as I see it, is conclusive that the bible, including the gospels, has been repeatedly edited and redacted.
This is an obstacle to acquiring faith and hope from these scriptures, but not an insurmountable one. Just because a text has been tampered with doesn't mean it should be entirely discredited.
The questions should be asked, however, why these changes have been made? and what conception of the those scriptures has resulted from those changes?

Though I see the importance of researching scholarly analysis of texts to discover which words stylistically clash with the context of other words, it is also important to approach scripture with one's own living sense of spirituality, faith, to discover which words are in harmony with what one discovers in one's own spiritual life.

As for Jesus singing a psalm to himself on the cross, it could be as simple as how any slave would have sang himself a spiritual while being whipped.

I don't see much point in looking for the fulfillment of prophecies. Prophecy and psalms are concerned with the here and now, the always moving present.

What I do see in both psalm 22 and in Jesus' life is that some people, perhaps all people, have a calling to fulfill. Often, it seems, the most meaningful callings involve the most suffering. I do believe that Jesus was called to live a divine life, and to teach the world about divinity and how humanity should live.

The alternate translation above does give a different slant to the singing of this psalm. Either way, though, the recital of this psalm on the cross need not mean that Jesus was exasperated with his fate, it could simply be that the psalm came to his mind and seemed appropriate to his situation at the moment as he bled from the nine inch nails in his wrists.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Sancho

So where are you going with this thread?

Where the evidence points to, where else would a scholar go? If I were to set a course to a predetermined conclusion it wouldn't be scholarship; it would be propaganda, no?

Originally Posted by Sancho

The evidence, as I see it, is conclusive that the bible, including the gospels, has been repeatedly edited and redacted.

So I frequently hear, but to be honest I have seen little "evidence" presented pertaining to the Gospels especially...merely repeated allusion to this evidence. Perhaps an obstacle on my part is that I am not a learned linguistic scholar, but I like to think I am "with it" enough to hum along while the choir sings rather than blindly accept on faith such lofty claims. Perhaps you may be so kind as to present some of these evidences?

Originally Posted by Sancho

This is an obstacle to acquiring faith and hope from these scriptures, but not an insurmountable one. Just because a text has been tampered with doesn't mean it should be entirely discredited.
The questions should be asked, however, why these changes have been made? and what conception of the those scriptures has resulted from those changes?

One can find hope in literary places far afield from sacred texts, the "Chicken Soup" series of books come to mind. Faith on the other hand seems to me to demand a necessity of sacredness, or at least something quite comparable and substitutional. A person may have a kind of faith that evolution works as is commonly described, trusting that those who tell them so know whereof they speak. The same may be said for those who have faith that gravity will continue to work as a balance against centrifugal and centripedal forces, strong and weak nuclear forces and electricity; even though we still have no working model of what precisely gravity *is.*

So I can agree to a point about "a text has been tampered with doesn't mean it should be entirely discredited," at least in principle if not in practice. You are most correct, it should be asked; "why were these texts tampered with, and does it affect the meaning?"

Earlier you suggested that both Gandhi and Martin Luthur King Jr. were respectable and respected religious leaders, both of whom admired the words of Jesus, yet whom had also written inspired and moving works. I agree. Nevertheless it remains, neither Gandhi nor King, Jr. have religious denominations named for them, nor are their teachings the basis of any new branch of faith. There is no "Gandhianity" nor "Kingism." Neither one is put forward as a Messiah, let alone in Biblical terms "*the* Messiah."

Jesus, on the other hand, was and is.

The importance of this is not to be underestimated. The whole foundational principle of Christianity rests upon it...which is to say, without Jesus as *the* Messiah, Christianity as a whole crumbles to dust and ash.

Originally Posted by Sancho

Though I see the importance of researching scholarly analysis of texts to discover which words stylistically clash with the context of other words, it is also important to approach scripture with one's own living sense of spirituality, faith, to discover which words are in harmony with what one discovers in one's own spiritual life.

"Stylistically clash?" Doesn't that in itself leave a rather wide berth for interpretation? Hearsay is hardly evidence, opinion is not evidence at all. Let's see, I like this part, but I don't like that part, and this part is too controversial, and this one just doesn't make any sense after we remove these others...

Don't get me wrong here, I do understand there are some competing and conflicting manuscripts, and the tendency (I want to believe) is to side with the earlier script presuming age can be somewhat reliably determined.

In the end analysis though, since Jesus didn't write anything that remains, all we have is hearsay to begin with.

"(T)o discover which words are in harmony with what one discovers in one's own spiritual life" while simultaneously dissecting it *scientifically* seems to me to establish a dichotomy between truth and reality, in which case *evidence* is irrelevent and serves only to support the need for the scientific faction to exert authority over the religious faction. I suppose the question needs to be asked and the issue made plain: what is the relationship between truth and reality, and what role does evidence play? If truth and reality are to be distinct and separate issues, then it hardly seems fitting to use the reality nature of evidence against a fleeting phantom of philosophical truth. Therefore evidence can only realistically be applied if Jesus is indeed real; really lived and really died. What the evidence tells us about this is that we don't even *know* that much, there are no trustworthy secular or otherwise dissociated sources to confirm that Jesus even lived. Doubt is cast upon even the trifilling reference to Jesus in Josephus...while his mentioning of John the Baptist and Salome are not disputed by those same scholars.

The whole "greatest story ever told" *might* be a complete and total fabrication, according to the evidence (or great dearth thereof). And yet the reality of Christianity has been built upon that possible fiction over the course of 1700 plus years, which suggests circumstantially that there may be more to the pudding than simply what is in the list of ingredients.

Originally Posted by Sancho

As for Jesus singing a psalm to himself on the cross, it could be as simple as how any slave would have sang himself a spiritual while being whipped.

Then why *that* particular Psalm? Why not one more uplifting, more spiritually hopeful? Why not the 23rd Psalm...yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for thy rod and thy staff comfort me?

Yet a closer reading of the 22nd Psalm displays so much that transpired that there is no way an earthly human could preset or predict or orchestrate. Not even with a group of conspiratorial partners.

Originally Posted by Sancho

I don't see much point in looking for the fulfillment of prophecies. Prophecy and psalms are concerned with the here and now, the always moving present.

What I do see in both psalm 22 and in Jesus' life is that some people, perhaps all people, have a calling to fulfill. Often, it seems, the most meaningful callings involve the most suffering. I do believe that Jesus was called to live a divine life, and to teach the world about divinity and how humanity should live.

Fair enough, you are certainly welcome to interpret as you wish. Evidently prophecy has little remit to your outlook. Of course I cannot help but think of all the times in the Gospels Jesus is noted as referencing the Old Testament. From an early age (10 or so) "arguing" with the rabbis in the Temple to his ministry teachings referencing directly to passages in the Jewish Bible, so it is evident by what is written that Jesus was quite well versed...all the more compelling his choice of Psalm to *sing* as he was dying.

Originally Posted by Sancho

The alternate translation above does give a different slant to the singing of this psalm. Either way, though, the recital of this psalm on the cross need not mean that Jesus was exasperated with his fate, it could simply be that the psalm came to his mind and seemed appropriate to his situation at the moment as he bled from the nine inch nails in his wrists.

I never have believed Jesus was exasperated with his fate, and I am not so inclined even now. The *suffering* component still is lost on me, but sacrificial lamb in context makes far more sense to me. All the more intriguing to me if there is any sense of reality as truth at all contained in the Passion story collectively told in the Gospels.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Sancho

The evidence, as I see it, is conclusive that the bible, including the gospels, has been repeatedly edited and redacted.

And the evidence is, that despite any changes evidenced, the theology of the Bible remains the same. Whilst whether and what has been changed will always be an open question somewhat dependent upon the skepticism of the inquirer, there is no evidence whatsoever to say that the implicit meaning and message of the Bible has been changed.

Originally Posted by Sancho

The questions should be asked, however, why these changes have been made? and what conception of the those scriptures has resulted from those changes?

It should also be understood however, that such questions can not be answered satisfactorily. It is evident that even the most informed critic relies on his own assumptions in his or her reading of even those texts written by their contemporaries, and are more often wrong than right. It is nigh-on impossible to determine what was in the mind of an anonymous scribe writing over 2,000 years ago.

Originally Posted by Sancho

it is also important to approach scripture with one's own living sense of spirituality, faith, to discover which words are in harmony with what one discovers in one's own spiritual life.

As long as you're not then bending the meaning of the text to fit your own preconceptions. You'll get nothing out of it that way, other than what you've already got, and overlaid upon it. You're wasting your time. Just look at the number of people who insist the whole thing's been fabricated.

Better to harmonise your life to it, rather than the other way round.

Originally Posted by Sancho

Either way, though, the recital of this psalm on the cross need not mean that Jesus was exasperated with his fate, it could simply be that the psalm came to his mind and seemed appropriate to his situation at the moment as he bled from the nine inch nails in his wrists.

That doesn't explain the Psalm though, does it? It doesn't explain prophecy.

If Jesus is not the subject of the Psalm, then who is?

Thomas

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

And the evidence is, that despite any changes evidenced, the theology of the Bible remains the same. Whilst whether and what has been changed will always be an open question somewhat dependent upon the skepticism of the inquirer, there is no evidence whatsoever to say that the implicit meaning and message of the Bible has been changed.

Thomas and Sancho, have you seen the book "Who Wrote the Bible ?" by Richard Elliott Friedman ? It is a very interesting discussion of the best current beliefs on this topic.

[juantoo3]

Curiousity killed the cat...satisfaction brought him back.

I've heard quite a bit over the years about how much of the "Jesus story" was comparable to various Pagan mythologies. I've even stumbled inadvertantly on small samples of this on my own. I found some intriguing tidbits today:

Jesus' and Horus' life events, etc.

referencing: Tom Harpur, "The Pagan Christ; Recovering the Lost Light," Thomas Allen, (2004)

This link charts the similarities between the Jesus story and the Horus (Egyptian) story.

Links between Jesus Christ and other heros & saviors

This link provides a list of related papers comparing the Jesus story with various Pagan stories:

A comparison of beliefs about Jesus' life events by Christians and others

Introduction: were events in Jesus' life copied from others?

Similarities between Christianity and Paganism; reasons; implications

Links between Jesus and Semitic or Indo-European heroes

Links between Jesus and other god-men & saviors:
Specific life events shared by Jesus and at least one other god-man

A Jesus - Horus linkage? < This seems to be the most controversial

A Jesus - Osiris/Dionysus linkage?

A Jesus - Krishna linkage Specific similarities between Krishna and Christ

The following link suggests an earlier Jewish belief regarding the resurrection:

Five non-miraculous explanations for Jesus' resurrection

Belief in resurrection is a recycled earlier Jewish belief:
There is some archeological evidence that at least some ancient Jews before the birth of Jesus expected the arrival of a great Jewish leader who would die and be resurrected three days later.

A stone tablet believed to have been written sometime in the first century BCE is now called "Gabriel's Vision of Revelations" or "Gabriel's Revelation" or "The Vision of Gabriel."

Israel Knohl, professor of biblical studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem believes that one line on the tablet describes the Archangel Gabriel telling a "Prince of Princes" that "In three days you shall live: I, Gabriel, command you."

Knohl suggests that the tablet could: "... overturn the vision we have of the historic personality of Jesus. ... This text could be the missing link between Judaism and Christianity in so far as it roots the Christian belief in the resurrection of the Messiah in Jewish tradition." 4 More information

In fairness, this raises the issue of some mysterious stone tablet I haven't heard of before, and I am wondering if there are other scholars of antiquity who are familiar with it and have drawn similar conclusions...or if this is a hoax or red herring.

This link is to a menu overview of this site's resources on this topic:

The resurrection of Jesus Christ: Fact or fable?

***

Having gone over quite a bit of this material specifically looking for clues on the resurrection, I am left wanting. Seems to me a lot, a whole lot, of bait and switch. The only point presented as similar in Pagan mythos (after a lot of reading through the hints and allegations) is found on the table of similarities between Horus and Jesus, and even that is forcing the issue.

My point being, as I have stated before elsewhere, that yes there are similarities between the "mythos" of Jesus and Pagan mythos in existence in the Palestine / Mediterranean region in the first 3 centuries AD. But what is noticeably absent is the resurrection as such, and the triumphal message proclaimed that dawned the Christian era.

No doubt a great deal can be ascertained by historical reference. Looking at the history of the region and the cultural inclinations that prevailed: Roman, Greek (several varieties), even some Egyptian, Persian and Babylonian influences, not to mention the Judaic cultural dominance of Palestine, presents quite a collision of competing philosophical outlooks, some complimentary and some conflicting.

There is even some hint at an East Indian connection:

If a strong Krishna - Christ link exists, what is left of Christianity?
If one were to delete from the Gospels the events in Jesus' life that seem to originate in Krishna's story, one would end up with a story of:

A very human, itinerant, Jewish, rabbi-healer.

A teacher who largely followed the teachings of Hillel -- a liberal Jewish rabbi from the 1st century BCE.

An observant Jew who had a special relationship with God -- a kinship so close that Jesus referred to God by the familiar term "Abba."

This is very close to the image of Jesus found by many liberal theologians, in their quest for the historical Jesus.

If the events in Jesus' life that appear to come from Krishna were eliminated as invalid, then most of the key Christian beliefs about Jesus would have to be abandoned: his virgin birth, incarnation, sinless life, crucifixion, descent into Hell, resurrection, ascension to heaven. Criteria for salvation, belief in the Trinity, the inerrancy of the Bible, the inspiration of the authors of the Bible by God, etc. would also have to be rejected.

emphasis mine, -jt3

Links between two god-men saviors: Jesus and Krishna

...although no connection with the resurrection as related in the Jesus story, even though this reference claims that Krishna is said to return every so often to defeat evil and return to whatever heavenly abode he abides in.

All in all, this collection of references is intriguing, but the scholar in me retains a healthy scepticism. And while I did see repeated allusion to similarities, and indeed many similarities were highlighted, the resurrection connection was forced at best. So far it seems to this student that the resurrection as related in the Jesus story and the significance attached by the Christian tradition has no direct correlation in the Pagan pantheon.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

And the evidence is, that despite any changes evidenced, the theology of the Bible remains the same.

I'm not so certain that we can make such a blanket statement.

Observing your own caveat: "As long as you're not then bending the meaning of the text to fit your own preconceptions," and considering the Arian controversy alone (there is more, we've already had this discussion earlier) we *can* say there were competing interpretations of scripture prior to Nicea. Basically then, the "status quo" of the New Testament has been dynamism from the start. It was only with the codification at Nicea that anything like a uniform "theology" could be determined.

What Jesus' pure, unadulterated original intent was with all of his teachings still remains largely a mystery, a mystery that as you mentioned "will always be an open question somewhat dependent upon the skepticism of the inquirer" and "that even the most informed critic relies on his own assumptions in his or her reading of even those texts written by their contemporaries, and are more often wrong than right." The only serious claim left to the Catholic orthodoxy is that of tradition, and as a logical argument appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Removing tradition from the mix means that the Catholic interpretation is but one *more* manner of interpretation in a mix with others.

Seems to me the closest to the original point reference of Jesus and his roundtable of merry men is seriously overweighted in Jewish orientation, and that source point Judaism is not only *deliberately* divorced at Nicea, it is now so far gone as to have vanished in all but the most fringe elements of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Better to harmonise your life to it, rather than the other way round.

Agreed, however, what is that to mean? Orthodoxy? Tradition? Opinion? Evidence? Truth? Reality?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Observing your own caveat: "As long as you're not then bending the meaning of the text to fit your own preconceptions," and considering the Arian controversy alone (there is more, we've already had this discussion earlier) we *can* say there were competing interpretations of scripture prior to Nicea.

Yes we can. The point is, how are those preconceptions formed? Arius' theology traces back into Origen and then Plato. To accept an Arian theology is to determine the meaning of scripture not according to what it says, but according to what another doctrine, Platonism in this case, will allow it to say.

Likewise there were disputes with those who wanted to modify the meaning of Christian practice to conform to the letter of the Mosaic Law.

Today there are those who want it Christianity to conform to Buddhism, or Islam, or the New Age, or whatever.

Originally Posted by holysmoke

Basically then, the "status quo" of the New Testament has been dynamism from the start.

If I understand you to mean that Scripture has its own impetus, and requires nothing extraneous, then yes. This dynamism is its orthodoxy. Every philosophical system has its own dynamism.

Originally Posted by holysmoke

What Jesus' pure, unadulterated original intent was with all of his teachings still remains largely a mystery, a mystery that as you mentioned "will always be an open question somewhat dependent upon the skepticism of the inquirer" and "that even the most informed critic relies on his own assumptions in his or her reading of even those texts written by their contemporaries, and are more often wrong than right."

Yes, that's why it's a matter of faith, not just logic.

Originally Posted by holysmoke

The only serious claim left to the Catholic orthodoxy is that of tradition, and as a logical argument appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

I beg your pardon? I don't think so. Science is a tradition. So is art, poetry and music ... Philosophy is a tradition. 'Reason', 'logic', 'rhetoric', 'insight', 'judgement' are all traditional terms ...

Originally Posted by holysmoke

Seems to me the closest to the original point reference of Jesus and his roundtable of merry men is seriously overweighted in Jewish orientation, and that source point Judaism is not only *deliberately* divorced at Nicea, it is now so far gone as to have vanished in all but the most fringe elements of Christianity.

I don't think you can say that. had it been divorced, then the Old Testament would not be canonical. The God of the Creed of Nicea is unmistakably Jewish.

Thomas

[juantoo3]

LOL, I'm not sure how my name changed to holysmoke, but I've been called worse...

Originally Posted by Thomas

Arius' theology traces back into Origen and then Plato. To accept an Arian theology is to determine the meaning of scripture not according to what it says, but according to what another doctrine, Platonism in this case, will allow it to say.

Ah, Origen:

Using his knowledge of Hebrew, he produced a corrected Septuagint.[5] He wrote commentaries on all the books of the Bible.[5] In De principiis (On First Principles), he articulated the first philosophical exposition of Christian doctrine.[5] He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist.[5] Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God.[5] He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him.[5] His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, "the fabulous preexistence of souls," and "the monstrous restoration which follows from it" were declared anathema in the 6th century.[6]

emphasis mine, -jt3

Origen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So this was the first "Christian" guy to philosophically reckon the teachings in the Bible as allegory (instead of literal)? And the church declared his teachings anathema? Yet Emperor Constantine, great champion of the Christian faith that he is, was baptised by a priest of the Arian persuasion who had to have been instructed in the teachings of Origen? The same Origen whose teachings were declared anathema two hundred or so years later?

Originally Posted by Thomas

Likewise there were disputes with those who wanted to modify the meaning of Christian practice to conform to the letter of the Mosaic Law.

The little Peter / Paul debacle served as a point of reference, no doubt. By the time of Nicea though, it was quite evident that the Emperor's antisemitism would hold sway. A look at the decrees coming out of Nicea makes that pretty plain...no more Passover, and no more ritual washing (goodness, we can't have people running around with clean hands, can we?). The powers that be had to find a way to turn an itinerant radical Jewish <*shudder*> rabbi into a Roman "hero-god." All sizzle, no steak.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Today there are those who want it Christianity to conform to Buddhism, or Islam, or the New Age, or whatever.

Well sure there are limits, but what you are alluding to here is quite different from what I am saying. Jesus was a Jew...with *all* that entails. Viewing source point Christianity through a Jewish lens only makes logical and historical and cultural sense. Everything else is pretension, other than the amalgamation with Paganism, which evidently was done with political motivation...purposely disguised to hide that very fact.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Yes, that's why it's a matter of faith, not just logic.

I agree, and that is another method of reasoning we have to thank Judaism for.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I don't think you can say that. had it been divorced, then the Old Testament would not be canonical. The God of the Creed of Nicea is unmistakably Jewish.

Nah. The G-d of Nicea is Jewish in name only. All sizzle, no steak. Look again at the proceedings from that Council...everything that even hinted of Judaism was stripped away, deliberately.

Just a little link to the previous discussion and the Council of Nicea, for those interested:

Rome in transition

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The following link suggests an earlier Jewish belief regarding the resurrection:

Five non-miraculous explanations for Jesus' resurrection

In fairness, this raises the issue of some mysterious stone tablet I haven't heard of before, and I am wondering if there are other scholars of antiquity who are familiar with it and have drawn similar conclusions...or if this is a hoax or red herring.

While reviewing the previous material on the other thread, I was reminded of the find of a stone tablet with this reference:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/wo...nt&oref=slogin

[Sancho]

Thanks for the rebukes. I have misrepresented myself.

Here are some selections from "The Great Code" by Northrop Frye that might be of interest.

There have always been two directions in Biblical scholarship, the critical and the traditional, though often they have merged. The critical approach establishes the text and studies the historical and cultural background; the traditional interprets it in accordance with what a consensus of theological and ecclesiastical authorities have declared the meaning to be. I could not find the clues I wanted in critical Biblical scholarship, so far as I was acquainted with it. The analytical and historical approach that has dominated Biblical criticism for over a century was of relatively little use to me, however incidentally I may depend on it. At no point does it throw any real light on how or why a poet might read the Bible. [. . .] Instead of emerging from lower criticism, or textual study, most of it dug itself into a still lower, or sub-basement, criticism in which disintegrating the text became an end in itself. As a result its essential discoveries were made quite early, and were followed by a good deal of straw thrashing.
There are a number of books, for example, telling us that the account of creation with which the Book of Genesis opens comes from a Priestly narrative, much the latest of four or five documents that make up the book. A genuine higher criticism, I should think, would observe that this account of creation stands at the beginning of Genesis, despite its late date, because it belongs at the beginning of Genesis. That would lead to an integrated study of the Book of Genesis, and eventually of the whole Bible, as it now stands, concerning itself with the question of why the Bible as we know it emerged in that particular form. The Bible does not, for all its miscellaneous content, present the appearance of having come into existence through an improbable series of accidents; and, while it is certainly the product of a long and complex editorial process, the end product needs to be examined in its own right. (xvii)
[. . .]
We cannot read far in the bible without recognizing verbal structure that remind us of what are called myths [. . .] As a literary critic I want to anchor this word in its literary context; so myth to me means, first of all, mythos, plot, narrative, or in general the sequential ordering of words. (31)
[. . . ]
However, this primary use of the word "myth" as verbal sequence is too broad to be very useful in itself, and we generally associate the term with a more restricted context. The verbal culture of a pre-discoursive society will consist largely of stories, but among those stories there grows up a specialization in social function that affects some stories more than others. Certain stories seem to have a peculiar significance: they are the stories that tell a society what is important for it to know, whether about its gods, its history, its laws, or its class structure. These stories may be called myths in a secondary sense, a sense that distinguishes them from folktales --stories told for entertainment or other less central purposes. [. . .]
Secondary myths have two qualities that folktales do not, remembering that these qualities derive from their social function and authority rather than from their structure. First, some sense of canon relates them to one another: a myth takes its place in a mythology, an interconnected group of myths, whereas folktales are nomadic, traveling over the world and interchanging their themes and motifs. (33)
[. . . ]
The general principal involved here is that if anything historically true is in the Bible, it is not there because it is historically true but for different reasons. The resons have presumably something to do with spiritual profundity or significance. (40)
[. . .]
When the Apostle Thomas demanded visible and tangible evidence for the Resurrection, he was told that he would have understood the Resurrection more clearly if he hadn't bothered with it. I doubt that the implication of this story is that an uncritical attitude is spiritually closer to truth than a critical one. I think the implication is rather that the more trustworthy the evidence, the more misleading it is. (46)
[. . .]
We have said earlier that the great doctrinal structures of the past, the ones that we identify as Catholic or Protestant or the like, have always tended to make themselves the antitype of Biblical narrative and imagery. They are designed to establish the claim: this is what our central revelation really means, and this is how you have to understand it. Such systems of faith, however impressive and useful still, can hardly be definitive for us now, because they are so heavily conditioned by the phases of language ascendant in their time, whether metonymic or descriptive. A reconsideration of the Bible can take place only along with, and as part of, a reconsideration of language, of all the structures, including the literary ones, that language produces. One would hope that in this context the aim of such a reconsideration would be a more tentative one, directed not to a terminus of belief but to the open community of vision, and to the charity that is the informing principle of a still greater community than faith. (226-227)