[UA] Minor cards

[thanatos at interaccess.com]

----- Original Message -----
From: Edward Parsons <edward-parsons at ntlworld.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:53 am
Subject: Re: [UA] Minor cards

> The KJV is not accurate.
> 
> Matthew, Mark and Luke do not describe the crucifixion: no nails, 
> no blood
> no nothing. Instead they talk of Jesus being "hung up", which is 
> nicelyambiguous. (According to some tranlations). In your quotes 
> from these three
> subsititue that and they are suddenly very unlcear.
> 
> John, however, does talk a lot on the crucifixion, nails, blood and
> everything.. Then again, John is hardly the most reputable of sources.
> 
> The modern translation has changed "hung up" in the first three to
> "crucified", for ease of understanding. The same ways "supports 
> oppositiongroups" become "supports organised terrorism" when 
> people write on Iraq.
> 
> If I get the time, I will check this out more fully. Feel free to 
> do some
> research of your own (unless your some sort of bible scholar who 
> just knows
> all this anyway).

Well, I checked my various copies of the Bible, and what strikes me is the bit that preceeds it.  While all four gospels occasionally differ here and there, it's weird when they align absolutely.  In this case, we have poor Simon who's compelled to help Jesus in his Passion.  Now if it's true that he's not toting some heavy timber, then what the heck does Jesus need carried?  The rope?  Doesn't sound right to me.  And then there's the matter of his six hours, culminating with his final words (not to mention the taunts of the two thieves, which is recounted in all four gospels), which is all a little hard when your neck is being stretched.

I'll continue to do research into it (tho it'll be hard to find a copy that's literally translated).  To me, though, I think the problem is that there's no word for 'crucifixion' in Aramaic and Hebrew.  Given that the Romans hadn't been in the area for that long (less than 200 years) and that it was an extraordinary punishment for an extraordinary crime, it might have been more convenient to describe it rather than name it.  There's some interesting stuff about the Cross and Crucifixion in the Catholic Encyclopedia--say what you want about them, they knew exactly why they believe as they do:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm.  Of particular note:

According to Roman custom, the penalty of crucifixion was always preceded by scourging (virgis cædere, Prud., "Enchirid.", xli, 1); after this preliminary punishment, the condemned person had to carry the cross, or at least the transverse beam of it, to the place of execution (Plut., "Tard. dei vind.", ix, "Artemid.", II, xli), exposed to the jibes and insults of the people (Joseph., "Antiq.", XIX, iii; Plaut., "Most.", I, 1, 52; Dion., VII, 69). On arrival at the place of execution the cross was uplifted (Cic., Verr., V, lxvi). Soon the sufferer, entirely naked, was bound to it with cords (Plin., "Hist. Nat.", XXVIII, iv; Auson., "Id.", VI, 60; Lucan, VI, 543, 547), indicated in Latin by the expressions agere, dare, ferre, or tollere in crucem. He was then, as Plautus tells us, fastened with four nails to the wood of the cross ("Lact.", IV, 13; Senec., "Vita beat.", 19; Tert., "Adv. Jud.", x; Justus Lipsius " De Cruce", II, vii; xli-ii). Finally, a placard called the titulu
s bearing the name of the condemned man and his sentence, was placed at the top of the cross (Euseb., "Hist. Eccl", V, 1; Suet., Caligula", xxxviii and "Domit." x; Matt., xxvii, 37; John, xix, 19).

Note that all the citations are contemporaneous with the era in which Jesus lived, and only a few have a pro-Christian agenda.  And, yeah, while it's possible they cherry picked the stuff that supported their side in the Dark Ages, enough really embarassing stuff lingered that makes me question this proposition.




_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua