Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[XTalk] re: nekkid jesus a la steve davies

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    further- you might want to consider the facts: 1- men and women wore a citwn next to their skin 2- over the citwn were worn imation. that jesus had on multiple
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 7, 1999
      further- you might want to consider the facts:
      1- men and women wore a citwn next to their skin
      2- over the citwn were worn imation.

      that jesus had on multiple garments when arrested is attested by the fact
      that the soldiers divided his undies and gambled for his outer garment.
      that he was arrested shortly after the supper with his disciples and their
      stay in the garden is also attested.

      as opposed to these facts we have your thoroughly unattested notion that
      jesus had nothing on but a towel.

      thus, we must assume that you have some reason for making your unsupported
      suggestion. what could that reason be? is it that you wish to plant some
      ridiculous and insidious notion in listers minds? or that you want to stir
      up controversy? or that you wish to portray jesus as something that he was not?

      in short, steve, i wonder what your up to with your implications.

      jim
      (profoundly irritated)

      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      Jim West, ThD
      jwest@...
      http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
    • Liz Fried
      ... Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject, but I had always heard this division of his clothes was derived from Psalm 22:18. I
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 7, 1999
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Jim West [mailto:jwest@...]

        > further- you might want to consider the facts:
        > 1- men and women wore a citwn next to their skin
        > 2- over the citwn were worn imation.
        >
        > that jesus had on multiple garments when arrested is attested by the fact
        > that the soldiers divided his undies and gambled for his outer garment.
        > that he was arrested shortly after the supper with his disciples and their
        > stay in the garden is also attested.
        >
        > as opposed to these facts we have your thoroughly unattested notion that
        > jesus had nothing on but a towel.


        Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject, but
        I had always heard this division of his clothes was derived from Psalm
        22:18.
        I don't know if it can be considered a fact about HJ.

        Liz

        Lisbeth S. Fried
        Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
        New York University
        51 Washington Sq. S.
        New York, NY 10012
        lizfried@...
      • Ramon Garcia
        While we re on the subject of garments, what do any of you make of the naked man in Mark who ran away when Jesus was arrested? Does this tie in with the naked
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 7, 1999
          While we're on the subject of garments, what do any of you make of the
          naked man in Mark who ran away when Jesus was arrested? Does this tie in
          with the naked man in secret Mark. Was this an indication of any
          initiations in early christianity? Was there any other literature on said
          subject-naked men & initiations/ baptisms?
          Thanks,
          Ramon
        • Robert M Schacht
          On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:32:47 -0500 Liz Fried ... the fact ... garment. ... their ... Liz, I want to pick on the words was derived, as
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 7, 1999
            On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:32:47 -0500 "Liz Fried" <lizfried@...>
            writes:
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: Jim West [mailto:jwest@...]
            >
            > >... that jesus had on multiple garments when arrested is attested by
            the fact
            > > that the soldiers divided his undies and gambled for his outer
            garment.
            > > that he was arrested shortly after the supper with his disciples and
            their
            > > stay in the garden is also attested....
            > >
            >
            > Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject, but
            > I had always heard this division of his clothes was derived from Psalm
            > 22:18.
            > I don't know if it can be considered a fact about HJ.
            >
            > Liz

            Liz,
            I want to pick on the words "was derived," as this type of logic is one
            of my pet peeves.
            Yes, it *might have been* derived from Psalm 22:18, but what is the
            evidence that it was? Certainly, Jim fell into using the locution "the
            fact that" for something that was attested but that has not been
            established as fact. You go too far in the other direction by jumping
            from the reasonable "might have been derived" to the bald assertion that
            it "was derived."

            This is part of the "prophecy historicized" argument that Crossan has
            popularized, but that is by no means original with him. This type of
            argument carries more weight when the reported event is fabulous; but in
            this case, it is merely concerned with what the soldiers did with Jesus'
            clothes. Would it have been so unusual for the soldiers to have dealt
            with this clothes in this manner? So in this case, it becomes merely a
            matter of preferring one mundane interpretation over another, on the
            basis of nothing more than that the author of the report is suspected of
            using the same literary device elsewhere.

            The preceding is part of a general phenomena among scholars to attack the
            credibility of our sources, if necessary with weak arguments like "it
            might have been, therefore it was." If apologists are accused of
            accepting the text at face value unless proven wrong, some critics might
            be accused of rejecting the veracity of the text unless it is proven
            right.

            Please don't take offense; my argument is not with you, but with overly
            glib statements that jump to conclusions that don't appear to be
            justified by the evidence presented.

            Bob
          • Roger L.. Kimmel
            ... While I am certain Liz can defend herself, it struck me that she never baldly asserted anything, but merely conveyed that she had heard that this was a
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 7, 1999
              On Sunday 7 November 1999, 11:15 PM Robert M. Schacht said:

              >>Liz Fried said:
              >>
              > > Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject, but
              > > I had always heard this division of his clothes was derived from Psalm
              > > 22:18.
              > > I don't know if it can be considered a fact about HJ.
              > >
              > Liz,
              > I want to pick on the words "was derived," as this type of logic is one
              > of my pet peeves.
              > Yes, it *might have been* derived from Psalm 22:18, but what is the
              > evidence that it was? Certainly, Jim fell into using the locution "the
              > fact that" for something that was attested but that has not been
              > established as fact. You go too far in the other direction by jumping
              > from the reasonable "might have been derived" to the bald assertion that
              > it "was derived."

              While I am certain Liz can defend herself, it struck me that she never
              baldly asserted anything, but merely conveyed that she had "heard' that this
              was a popular derivation, and, further that she didn't "know" therefore if
              it "can be considered a fact". It seems there are a lot of modifiers here,
              certainly too many for the characterization of her remarks as a "bald
              assertion". In fact, she prefaces her remarks with:

              > > Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject

              I think, perhaps, a bit of overreaction to her words. What do you think?

              Roger L. Kimmel


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Robert M Schacht <bobschacht@...>
              To: <crosstalk2@egroups.com>
              Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 11:15 PM
              Subject: [XTalk] Re: re: nekkid jesus a la steve davies


              >
              >
              > On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:32:47 -0500 "Liz Fried" <lizfried@...>
              > writes:
              > > > -----Original Message-----
              > > > From: Jim West [mailto:jwest@...]
              > >
              > > >... that jesus had on multiple garments when arrested is attested by
              > the fact
              > > > that the soldiers divided his undies and gambled for his outer
              > garment.
              > > > that he was arrested shortly after the supper with his disciples and
              > their
              > > > stay in the garden is also attested....
              > > >
              > >
              > > Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject, but
              > > I had always heard this division of his clothes was derived from Psalm
              > > 22:18.
              > > I don't know if it can be considered a fact about HJ.
              > >
              > > Liz
              >
              > Liz,
              > I want to pick on the words "was derived," as this type of logic is one
              > of my pet peeves.
              > Yes, it *might have been* derived from Psalm 22:18, but what is the
              > evidence that it was? Certainly, Jim fell into using the locution "the
              > fact that" for something that was attested but that has not been
              > established as fact. You go too far in the other direction by jumping
              > from the reasonable "might have been derived" to the bald assertion that
              > it "was derived."
              >
              > This is part of the "prophecy historicized" argument that Crossan has
              > popularized, but that is by no means original with him. This type of
              > argument carries more weight when the reported event is fabulous; but in
              > this case, it is merely concerned with what the soldiers did with Jesus'
              > clothes. Would it have been so unusual for the soldiers to have dealt
              > with this clothes in this manner? So in this case, it becomes merely a
              > matter of preferring one mundane interpretation over another, on the
              > basis of nothing more than that the author of the report is suspected of
              > using the same literary device elsewhere.
              >
              > The preceding is part of a general phenomena among scholars to attack the
              > credibility of our sources, if necessary with weak arguments like "it
              > might have been, therefore it was." If apologists are accused of
              > accepting the text at face value unless proven wrong, some critics might
              > be accused of rejecting the veracity of the text unless it is proven
              > right.
              >
              > Please don't take offense; my argument is not with you, but with overly
              > glib statements that jump to conclusions that don't appear to be
              > justified by the evidence presented.
              >
              > Bob
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > The Mental Health Practitioner's Instant
              > Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set
              > of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a
              > $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at
              > http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1364
              >
              > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
              > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
              > To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2
              > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Sukie Curtis
              Ramon Garcia wrote: While we re on the subject of garments, what do any of you make of the naked man in Mark who ran away when Jesus was arrested? Does this
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 8, 1999
                Ramon Garcia wrote:

                While we're on the subject of garments, what do any of you make of the
                naked man in Mark who ran away when Jesus was arrested? Does this tie in
                with the naked man in secret Mark. Was this an indication of any
                initiations in early christianity? Was there any other literature on said
                subject-naked men & initiations/ baptisms?

                Sukie Curtis (new cross-talk-listener) responds:

                Crossan makes just that kind of connection in _Four Other Gospels_ in the
                section on Secret Mark. His proposal, in brief, is that there's evidence
                (as in Hippolytus) for early baptismal liturgies' being done both naked and
                at night, and that there would therefore have been nothing unusual or
                "shocking" about the scene in Secret Mark. Once the Carpocratians began to
                interpet it erotically and homosexually, someone saw the need to amend the
                text to the form of our current canonical Mark, which "took the phrases and
                expressions of that [Secret Mark] story, both small and large, and scattered
                them over the rest of the gospel" (p. 76). He cites Koester as holding a
                similar view: that "'canonical' Mark was a purified version of the 'secret'
                Gospel, because the traces of the author of Secret Mark are still visible in
                the canonical Gospel of Mark". And, from Crossan again, those scattered
                pieces of Secret Mark have often been something of a probelm for readers of
                Mark, in that they don't seem to fit easily in their present contexts.

                Sukie (Susan B.) Curtis
                Cumberland Foreside, Maine
                sbcurtis@...

                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                The Mental Health Practitioner’s Instant
                Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set
                of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a
                $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at
                http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1364

                To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
                To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com


                -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
                -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=crosstalk2&m=1
              • Willi Braun
                ... There is the take of your clothes saying in Thomas 37 and the article by J.Z. Smith, The garments of shame History of Religions 5 (1966): 217-38, where
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 8, 1999
                  Ramon Garcia wrote:
                  >While we're on the subject of garments, what do any of you make of the
                  >naked man in Mark who ran away when Jesus was arrested? Does this tie in
                  >with the naked man in secret Mark. Was this an indication of any
                  >initiations in early christianity? Was there any other literature on said
                  >subject-naked men & initiations/ baptisms?

                  There is the "take of your clothes" saying in Thomas 37 and the article by
                  J.Z. Smith, "The garments of shame" History of Religions 5 (1966): 217-38,
                  where Smith adduces rather wide-spread evidence of what he calls "cultic
                  nudity".

                  On the "eunuch" theme: I take it that this type was commonly sneered at in
                  Greco-Roman times generally. E.g. Lucian, The Eunuch 3: "they are neither
                  man nor woman ... but hybrids (syntheton), mixtures (mikton), freaks
                  (teratodes) outside the bounds of human nature." About on the same level of
                  regard as the androgynos. I am not suggesting there is a link between
                  Matt's eunuch, Mark's naked guy, and Thomas' androgyne, except that the
                  folks in these times seemed to think that whatever redemption meant it also
                  had something to do with bodily surfaces and gender.

                  Willi
                • omcguire@wlu.edu
                  robert m schacht wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2/?start=3070 ... but ... that ... in ... Jesus ... Bob,
                  Message 8 of 8 , Nov 8, 1999
                    robert m schacht <bobschach-@...> wrote:
                    original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2/?start=3070
                    >
                    > > Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject,
                    but
                    > I had always heard this division of his clothes was derived from Psalm
                    > 22:18.
                    > I don't know if it can be considered a fact about HJ.
                    >
                    > Liz

                    >Liz,
                    >I want to pick on the words "was derived," as this type of logic is one
                    >of my pet peeves.
                    >Yes, it *might have been* derived from Psalm 22:18, but what is the
                    >evidence that it was? Certainly, Jim fell into using the locution "the
                    >fact that" for something that was attested but that has not been
                    >established as fact. You go too far in the other direction by jumping
                    >from the reasonable "might have been derived" to the bald assertion
                    that
                    >it "was derived."

                    >This is part of the "prophecy historicized" argument that Crossan has
                    >popularized, but that is by no means original with him. This type of
                    >argument carries more weight when the reported event is fabulous; but
                    in
                    >this case, it is merely concerned with what the soldiers did with
                    Jesus'
                    >clothes. Would it have been so unusual for the soldiers to have dealt
                    >with this clothes in this manner?

                    Bob,
                    I share your skepticism, if not your 'peeve', with automatic and
                    general application of the "prophecy historicised" criterion of
                    (non)historicity.
                    But the case for its application here is stronger than you have made it
                    seem.

                    In answer to your rhetorical question: No, it would not be unusal for
                    Roman soldiers to gamble for the clothes of a condemned criminal. What
                    is unusual, for a historian at least, is that this is just one of
                    several correspondences in detail (and often LXX word) between Psalm 22
                    and gospel accounts of the crucifixion scene: "...why hast thou
                    forsaken me?"; "... they wag their heads"; "...he committed his cause
                    to God, let him deliver him"; etc. These are already more coincidences
                    than a historian ought to be expected to swallow. Why swallow the one
                    about casting lots? Also, John aknowledges directly that the 22nd Psalm
                    is being 'fulfilled' by this detail. And the historian can no more
                    accept as genuine a specific, remote prescience in prophecy than
                    considerable set of textual coincidences.

                    All of which is to say that the soldiers may or may not have thrown
                    dice for the clothes, but the textual evidence is overwhelmingly
                    against any of the gospel accounts being based, however remotely and
                    indirectly, on a material witnessing of the event. Historically
                    speaking, Liz is accurate. The account is derived from Psalm 22.

                    Best, Odell
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.