My roommate and I somehow got on the topic of the Bible the other day, so I grabbed a copy to show her a few things. After we had run out of steam, I continued skim-reading through it (skim, read a little that looks interesting, skim some more) and found something that caught my attention.
I had reached the Gospels, of all things, and was looking through them. One of the big things that I found were some inconsistencies between the events portrayed in them (I understand that they were all written at different times by different people, so things are going to be different, but I will explain more later). Another thing I found actually had to do with why Jesus came to Earth to begin with, as well as some of the stories and experiences throughout each of the gospels.
The first one I'll address here is Mathew 15:21-28. The scene is of a Canaanite woman who came to Jesus because her daughter was "demon-possessed." Jesus ignores her until his disciples ask him to do something about it (specifically, send her away). Instead of sending her away, he tells her, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." She begs again, and is met with "It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs," basically equating those who were not the children of Israel (the Jews) to dogs (even house dogs, in some translations). After a third try ("even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table"), he grants her her plea and heals her daughter. (This story is repeated in Mark 7:24-30.)
While many will say that this was entirely a test of her faith, which may be true, it also says a lot about why Jesus was originally sent. He was sent, originally, exclusively for the Jews. The Canaan woman basically represents Christians. She was not a Jew, but believed that Jesus was the Messiah, so though Jesus had not died yet, she still believed in him. His reply to her implies that the Children of Israel are "God's chosen ones" were the only ones he was sent for. It's not until after he dies and is resurrected that his purpose spreads from the Jews to the rest of the world (Matthew 28:18-20).
Interestingly enough, of course, is that the Jews turned on Jesus and had him crucified. This is something I don't think anyone will dispute. Matthew 27 goes into the details about the Jews handing Jesus over to Pilate, the Roman Governor, to be executed. Pilate even washes his hands and tells the Jews that Jesus' blood is on their hands, to which they reply "let it be on us and our children!" (verse 25). From there, of course, Jesus is mocked, beaten, and eventually hung on a cross to die (probably either from sun poisoning or bleeding, either way, there's maximum suffering to be had there).
This is where I've found another continuity issue. Matthew quotes Jesus as crying out "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" or "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" before he dies. There is also an event of the temple curtain being torn in two. In Matthew, this happens after Jesus dies.
Luke, however, tells a slightly different story. For one, the temple curtain tears in two before Jesus dies. At first, as I was writing this, I was thinking that it's possible they happened at the same time, but the books (at least the version I'm looking at, if someone that is familiar with the original texts can verify this, it would be greatly appreciated) seem rather clear in the course of events. Matthew portrays it as the tearing caused by the event of Jesus' death, while Luke portrays it more as causing (or as a precursor to) Jesus' death. Furthermore, Luke quotes Jesus as saying "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" immediately before dying (which I understand can be argued with Matthew, since Matthew says he cries out just before dying, but doesn't specify what).
John, however, has a rather different story (Mark doesn't go into the death of Jesus). First of all, it goes into significantly more detail than the other two (which is fine). The part I have issue with is, again, just before he dies. John quotes him "it is completed" before dying. It also doesn't mention the blotting of the sun, earthquake, and tearing of the temple curtain (the first two agree in Matthew and Luke, which is why I didn't mention them before). For as much more detail as John goes into compared to Matthew and Luke, it seems odd that these events are not mentioned at all (and I have to wonder if the tearing of the temple curtain isn't a symbol of the Jewish and Christian religions becoming two distinct beliefs). I mean, the darkening of the sun, especially in those days, isn't exactly something that can be ignored, and an earthquake, even in these days, is no small matter, either.
As for all three of them, it seems odd, even when you take into account that they were written no less than 20 years after Jesus died, that they can't even agree on exactly what he said, especially when they say that these things have happened because a witness has testified and has not lied. These are, also, of course, supposed to be books in the divinely inspired book of God, most specifically the story of his begotten son.
I'd also like to note that the Jewish elders bribed the guards to say that the disciples stole Jesus' body and Matthew 28:15 states that story of the guards is what circulates through the Jews to this day, which is probably one of the many reasons that the Jews don't accept Jesus as the Son of God (of all the prophecies he has to fulfill, the whole returning from the dead thing is kind of a big one, ya know?).
I find it interesting (and a certain irony) that it's generally accepted that the Jews crucified Jesus, it's also stated in the Bible that Jesus' blood is on not only the ones who actively talked Pilot into having him executed, but their descendants as well, yet it's oftentimes the conservative Christians who get the most uptight about anti-semitic words/phrases/actions and who have a fit when someone poses the idea that Israel shouldn't exist (though Religious Tolerance does have a list of blood libel feuds and Christians v. Jews are found a couple of times in the list and notes that the Gospel according to John, specifically, has been used for a number of anti-semitic blood libels).
Please be aware that these are my thoughts on what I've found from reading a copy of the Bible that I happen to have in my house (New International, for those probably wondering, though I used bible.org's "Ne(x)t Bible" for citing and referencing, since I wasn't at home while writing this). I'm not really trying to convince anyone one way or another regarding it, though I will admit that it may seem (or be) somewhat biased, since I've come to look on the Bible and (more specifically) Christianity in general in a rather critical light (and the time that I originally read it was under critical circumstances).
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
yet it's oftentimes the conservative Christians who get the most uptight about anti-semitic words/phrases/actions and who have a fit when someone poses the idea that Israel shouldn't exist
I think they are only so interested in Israel because to them Jews are just a step away from accepting Jesus. So it's kind of a step in the right direction.
I liked your post a lot. Have you ever read any of the Gnostic writings? I've sort of recently discovered them, I really like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
I've heard of them, but I haven't had a chance to find and read them. It would be interesting, though, to see what she has to say, since unlike the canonical gospels, she was actually there (I'm assuming it was written by her, so if I'm mistaken, let me know).
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
From the way it was written, I don't think it was written by her. It seems that someone was there when she told the other apostles what Jesus said and that person wrote it down. I've only had a chance to read Mary's, but i love it. Probably the first 10 or 11 lines are my favorite because they talk about matter and nature, right up my alley. It's very short though. I'll probably read the Gospel of Thomas next.
I find it interesting (and a certain irony) that it's generally accepted that the Jews crucified Jesus, it's also stated in the Bible that Jesus' blood is on not only the ones who actively talked Pilot into having him executed
You know, I haven't studied enough of Jewish law to make this claim myself, but when I took a Holocaust class a couple years ago (taught by a non-religious Jew), he brought up a book that was written jointly by a Jew and a Christian saying that the events of the cruxifiction couldn't have happened the way they were described, because Jewish law wouldn't have worked that way. The Jews would have stoned Jesus themselves, say, instead of handing him over to Pilate. Or how it couldn't have happened when it did (around Passover) because courts wouldn't have been in session. I really need to find my notes from that class to find that book...
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
According to the Gospel of John, they had him crucified (instead of stoned) because he claimed to be the Son of God, so that would probably be your starting point -- the penalty for claiming to be the Messiah.
I did a little third party research while I was writing and found one or two things that said that they gave him to Pilot because they didn't have the political power to actually crucify him (I'm guessing it was because their accusations were religious and they couldn't pin any laws on him).
From what I read (at least from the Bible), it didn't really say when he was crucified, other than on the Sabbath. I could have missed the clues though, as I'm no Biblical scholar.
I'm guessing the Passover thing comes from when we celebrate Easter? That part's more for political reasons (the whole Pagan conversion thing; note spring equinox at that time).
It'd be cool though if you could find those notes, I'd like to see what he had to say about that.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The crucifixion takes place just after passover, if you follow the events of the bible.
The specific Sunday chosen for Easter probably doesn't match up with the resurrection, but that hardly matters. (Something people don't realize is that to a Christian, the DATES don't matter nearly as much as the events they represent)
Given when the Passover is, it seems like a suitable time for Easter to be.
The date chosen for Easter is not based on when Passover is (actually, I think this year, Passover is a full month after Easter...), but rather it's the Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox. If I'm remembering that correctly. Of course, we're looking at two rather different calendars, so that's probably the largest basis for the difference in the dates.
At any rate, it doesn't particularly matter... it was in the Spring.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Passover is in April this year, I believe. When ABLE, I don't mind practicing it, but most churches do it with the same zeal as you find at the DMV (or, more accurately, done as professionally as a 4th grader might), and most synagoges wouldn't give me the time of day up in minnesota... So I've not really been able to engage in it as I would wish to.
you are correct though, that is how we determine Easter Sunday.
However, having easter in the spring is easily traceable to the idea that it all likely happened in the spring.
You're right, I forgot about the lines where it states that "during the feast, it is customary for one prisoner to be released" when Jesus was brought to Pilot and Barbarus (spelling?) was released. Though, technically, it was during Passover (at least the way I understand it), since everything I've seen mentions things like "the first day of Passover" and Passover appears to be at least a couple days long ("between the two sundowns"). Also, the way it reads in the Bible, Jesus was brought to Pilot the day of Passover ("during the feast"). Whether or not he was crucified that day, I don't remember off hand.
Here's a few charts I found after a quick search to get a little more info about Passover. The first has a chart of the Gospels compared to each other, the others have time lines of the events leading up to the Resurrection.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/res_chart.htm
http://www.friktech.com/rel/passover.htm
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Jesus-Death.htm
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Passover is 7 days in Israel, and 8 days outside of Israel. The first and the last day (first two and last two outside of Israel), as well as the Sabbath, are observed as non-working days. When you see Passover written on calendars, they write it on the first full day, but all Jewish holidays start at sundown the night before, because that's when they see it as a new day.
The feast is the Passover (Pesach) Seder, which occurs on the first night, and maybe a smaller version on the last night.
Some of this might jump right over your head, but I love this website, so here: http://www.jewfaq.org/holidaya.htm
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
O.O Thank you for the link.
Perhaps you could answer this. The book of John quotes the Jews' reason for wanting Jesus crucified (not stoned, as is the penalty for most sins) was because he claimed to be the Son of God.
What is the Jewish penalty for claiming to be the Son of God?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That one I haven't been able to figure out yet. I'm pretty sure the penalty for claiming you're God is stoning, so I can't imagine why the Jews would turn him over to the Romans. Especially since the Romans were pretty good about letting the natives rule themselves, as long as they paid taxes.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
I read somewhere that the actually cause of death was suffocation. Here's the wikipedia version of it:
Cause of death
The length of time required to reach death could range from a matter of hours to a number of days, depending on exact methods, the health of the crucified person and environmental circumstances.
A theory attributed to Pierre Barbet holds that the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. He conjectured that when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the condemned would have severe difficulty inhaling, due to hyper-expansion of the lungs. The condemned would therefore have to draw himself up by his arms, or have his feet supported by tying or by a wood block. Indeed, Roman executioners could be asked to break the condemned's legs, after he had hung for some time, in order to hasten his death.[16] Once deprived of support and unable to lift himself, the condemned would die within a few minutes. If death did not come from asphyxiation, it could result from a number of other causes, including physical shock caused by the scourging that preceded the crucifixion, the nailing itself, dehydration, and exhaustion.
Experiments by Frederick Zugibe have revealed that, when suspended with arms at 60° to 70° from the vertical, test subjects had no difficulty breathing, only rapidly-increasing discomfort and pain. This would correspond to the Roman use of crucifixion as a prolonged, agonizing, humiliating death. Zugibe claims that the breaking of the crucified condemned's legs to hasten death, as mentioned in John 19:31-32, was administered as a coup de grâce, causing severe traumatic shock or hastening death by fat embolism. Crucifixion on a single pole with no transom, with hands affixed over one's head, would precipitate rapid asphyxiation if no block was provided to stand on, or once the legs were broken.
It was, however, possible to survive crucifixion, and there are records of people who did. The historian Josephus, a Judaean who defected to the Roman side during the Jewish uprising of AD66 - 72, describes finding two of his friends crucified. He begged for and was granted their reprieve; one died, the other recovered. Josephus gives no details of the method or duration of crucifixion before their reprieve.
While a common cause of death could have been asphyxiation, I doubt that was how Jesus died, considering he had been beaten (most likely with a cat 'o nine tails, a bladed, multi-ended whip), walked to the site of the crucifixion (possibly carrying his own cross), then nailed to it. It also took him somewhere between 3 and 9 hours to die, so it's probably more likely that he died from either loss of blood or exhaustion.
"Then, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not stay on the crosses on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was an especially important one), the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to have the victims’ legs broken and the bodies taken down."
The verse does, however, support what you mentioned about breaking their legs to speed up death (Jesus was already dead when the others that were executed with him were to have their legs broken), though whether it's from the shock and loss of that support or asphyxiation, I don't know. Jesus was, though, dead before he would have had his legs broken, indicating that another cause of death was more likely (especially considering how long it took).
Interesting article, though.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
At noon, as Jesus hung on the cross, the sun was hidden and everything was dark until 3:00 PM. During this time, in order to take a breathe on the cross, Jesus had to push up on the nail in His feet and pull up on the nails in His wrists, scraping His already sliced back up and down on that wooden cross. Those who died on a cross usually died of suffocation - not being able to have the continued strength to pull up and take a breath.
In more support:
Why did the victim die? In the strangely contorted sitting position, he could breathe in, but he could not relax the muscles of the rib cage sufficiently to breathe out. Thus, to exhale, he had to push himself up, using mainly his legs, In time, overcome by weakness, he was not able to raise himself for another breath, and he died of suffocation. Some victims fought off death for two or more days. Others died sooner. Either way, the agonies of the victim, as he desperately struggled time after time to raise himself and continue breathing, were prolonged and ghastly.
Even more support:
"...the mechanism of death in crucifixion was suffocation. The chain of events which ultimately led to suffocation are as follows: With the weight of the body being supported by the sedulum, the arms were pulled upward. This caused the intercostal and pectoral muscles to be stretched. Furthermore, movement of these muscles was opposed by the weight of the body. With the muscles of respiration thus stretched, the respiratory bellows became relatively fixed. As dyspnea developed and pain in the wrists and arms increased, the victim was forced to raise the body off the sedulum, thereby transferring the weight of the body to the feet. Respirations became easier, but with the weight of the body being exerted on the feet, pain in the feet and legs mounted. When the pain became unbearable, the victim again slumped down on the sedulum with the weight of the body pulling on the wrists and again stretching the intercostal muscles. Thus, the victim alternated between lifting his body off the sedulum in order to breathe and slumping down on the sedulum to relieve pain in the feet. Eventually , he became exhausted or lapsed into unconsciousness so that he could no longer lift his body off the sedulum. In this position, with the respiratory muscles essentially paralyzed, the victim suffocated and died. (DePasquale and Burch)
Due to the shallow breathing, the victim's lungs begin to collapse in small areas causing hypoxia and hypercarbia. A respiratory acidosis, with lack of compensation by the kidneys due to the loss of blood from the numerous beatings, resulted in an increased strain on the heart, which beats faster to compensate. Fluid builds up in the lungs. . Under the stress of hypoxia and acidosis the heart eventually fails. There are several different theories on the actual cause of death. One theory states that there was a filling of the pericardium with fluid, which put a fatal strain on the ability of the heart to pump blood (Lumpkin). Another theory states that Jesus died of cardiac rupture" (Bergsma). Another says the cause of Jesus' death "may have been multifactorial and related primarily to hypovolemic shock, exhaustion asphyxia and perhaps acute heart failure" (Edwards). A fatal cardiac arrhythmia may have caused the final terminal event (Johnson, Edwards).
A guard standing by would usually break a criminals legs in order to hasten death - he could then not push up and keep breathing. But when they came to do this to Jesus He was already dead. They stuck a spear in His side to check and pierced His heart and both blood and water came out of the wound, a clear sign that He was dead.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Livin Ma life like its GOLDEN!