[XTalk] Re: re: nekkid jesus a la steve davies
- robert m schacht <bobschach-@...> wrote:
> > Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject,
> I had always heard this division of his clothes was derived from Psalmthat
> I don't know if it can be considered a fact about HJ.
>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
>it "was derived."in
>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
>this case, it is merely concerned with what the soldiers did withJesus'
>clothes. Would it have been so unusual for the soldiers to have dealtBob,
>with this clothes in this manner?
I share your skepticism, if not your 'peeve', with automatic and
general application of the "prophecy historicised" criterion of
But the case for its application here is stronger than you have made it
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.