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

[XTalk] Re: re: nekkid jesus a la steve davies

Expand Messages
  • omcguire@wlu.edu
    robert m schacht wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2/?start=3070 ... but ... that ... in ... Jesus ... Bob,
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 8, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      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.