|
< Back to An Easter Discussion Introduction Twenty-Four Hours That Changed the World Forever: An Easter DiscussionJesus’ Triumphal March to CrucifixionThe sacred way as Roman procession Talkback Add Your Comment
 Scholars have long recognized that the Evangelists do not simply report the events of Jesus’ life. They select, arrange and modify material at their disposal to stress important themes—like the connection between Jesus and the Old Testament, the inclusion of gentiles in the kingdom and the nature of discipleship.
Mark’s gospel was probably written for gentile Christians living in Rome. Could this audience have understood the various allusions to the Hebrew Bible worked into Mark’s narrative? On the other hand, Mark’s contemporaries might well have grasped a pattern of meaning that has gone unrecognized by modern Bible commentators: In Mark’s gospel, the crucifixion procession is a kind of Roman triumphal march, with Jerusalem’s Via Dolorosa replacing the Sacra Via of Rome. In this way, Mark presents Jesus’ defeat and death, the moment of his greatest suffering and humiliation, as both literally and figuratively a triumph.
 Here we will examine more closely the crucifixion procession as described in Mark 15:16–39 (see the sidebar to this article). But first let’s look at the triumphal march, especially the features with which Mark’s first-century A.D. Roman contemporaries would have been familiar.
  The triumph was a celebration in which victorious generals and emperors paraded through Rome, putting their accomplishments on display for the populace. It evolved from Etruscan and Greek ceremonies calling for an appearance, or epiphany, of Dionysus, the dying and rising god.1 In the Athenian New Year festival, Dionysus, portrayed in costume by the king, was carried into the city in a formal procession, which culminated in a cry for the epiphany of the god (in Greek, thríambos; in Latin, triumpe). A bull was then sacrificed, and the king appeared as the god. In Greece, Zeus eventually supplanted Dionysus; the shift probably occurred because of Zeus’s position as king of the gods.
The Roman historian Dio Cassius describes an early Roman triumph after which subsequent processions were patterned. First, the soldiers proclaimed a victorious general imperator, and the senate decreed a triumph. The triumphator appeared “arrayed in the triumphal dress and wearing armlets, with a laurel crown upon his head, and holding a branch in his right hand.” He called together the people, praised the gathered soldiers, distributed gifts and then mounted a tower-shaped chariot, where a slave held a crown over his head. The triumphator was preceded into the city by captives displaying graphic representations of his victories. Finally, “the victorious general arrived at the Roman Forum, and after commanding that some of the captives be led to prison and put to death, he rode up to the Capitol. There he performed certain rites and made offerings and dined in the porticos up there, after which he departed homeward toward evening.”2
The connection between the triumphator and Jupiter (the Roman equivalent of Zeus) is remarkable. The triumphal robe, a garment of regal purple embroidered with gold, and the gold laurel wreath were both borrowed from the statue of the god in the temple Jupiter Capitolinus. The face of the triumphator was painted red in imitation of the same statue. The crowd cried triumpe, a call for the manifestation of the god. During the Roman republic, however, the triumphator was only recognized as under the tutelage of the god. The identification of the king with the deity would come later.
In the latter period of the Roman republic, as successive triumphators attempted to align themselves with, and even upstage, military heroes of the past, the processions became more complex, overlaying traditional ceremonial elements with increasingly gaudy and lavish displays.3 After about 20 B.C., the triumph became the exclusive privilege of the emperor. Now it was a tribute to an all-powerful individual, who, upon his accession, might well celebrate his conquest of Rome rather than his conquest for Rome or might manufacture any pretense for a display of power. Ultimately, for the mid-first-century tyrants Gaius (more familiarly known as Caligula) and Nero, this privilege brought the triumph together with the notion of the imperator’s own deification. Thus the ceremony became reconnected with its roots as a display of the ruler as a god.
It is in this relation between triumph and deity that the most profound connection with the Gospel of Mark emerges. Even prior to Mark’s gospel (before about 70 A.D.), Christ was understood as a triumphator. In 2 Corinthians 2:14–15, Paul proclaims:
Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.
Even the references to scent may evoke the image of first-century triumphs, which included the distribution of aromatic substances along the route of the procession to signify the preservation of the life of the triumphator and possibly the death of his captives, some of whom would be killed.4 Whether or not Paul extends the metaphor, there can be no mistaking his allusion to Christ as triumphator.
Mark’s crucifixion narrative contains a number of striking parallels to the Roman triumph. While the cumulative force of the comparison is significant, the most obvious allusions are made at the beginning of the narrative, perhaps signaling to Mark’s audience that there is more to come for those “on the inside” (compare Mark 4:11).
 Mark’s narrative begins with the Roman soldiers leading Jesus into “the courtyard of the palace.” The word Mark uses to refer to this place is praetorium, which could apply to military headquarters in general (for example, in Acts 23:35) but was also the common designation in Rome for the place and personnel of the imperial guard. The praetorian guard, which made or broke the power of emperors, was invariably present on the occasion of a triumph, and, significantly, it was called together en masse. If it were not for this custom of mustering the praetorian guard, we might think that Mark’s naming of the palace courtyard as the praetorium is simply an incidental detail. But Mark then tells us that “they called together the whole cohort.” It would be extremely odd for the entire soldiery (at least 200 men) to be called together to mock and beat a single prisoner. Rather, we should consider the details here as carefully chosen to evoke a familiar occasion, namely, the gathering of the soldiery in preparation for a triumphal march.
Contemporaneous accounts of Roman triumphs suggest that Mark’s description of Jesus’ clothing (“They clothed him in a purple cloak; and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on him” [Mark 15:17]) follows a formula. In one source after another, the triumphator is introduced clad in a ceremonial purple robe and a crown.5 The wearing of purple was outlawed for anyone below equestrian rank. The only available robe of this kind for Jesus would belong to Pilate, but it is inconceivable that he would lend his garment to be spat on by soldiers. Along similarly practical lines, one wonders where in the courtyard of a palace thorns would be available to make a crown. Are we to imagine that the soldiers delayed their mockery while someone went to look for a thornbush? The strangeness of these details, their likeness to the ceremonial garb of a triumphator and their combination with other details of the narrative suggest purpose rather than coincidence.6
Before the procession began, when the triumphator appeared in ceremonial garb, he would meet with the soldiers to receive their accolades. So in Mark’s gospel the immediate sequel to the appearance of Jesus in royal garb is the mock homage of the soldiers (“They began saluting him”). Their shout, “Hail, King of the Jews!” (Mark 15:18), may in fact correspond to a formulaic response in a triumph.7
As the soldiers lead Jesus along the Via Dolorosa, they compel an onlooker, Simon, to bear the cross. Simon is identified as from Cyrene (a Greek colony in North Africa) and as the father of Alexander and Rufus, who were probably known to Mark’s audience as church figures (Romans 16:13; 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 4:14). The account of Simon’s requisition by the soldiers as cross-carrier may serve simply to suggest the wearying effect of a prolonged procession. But it may also suggest another formulaic element in a triumph. A consistent feature in the numerous monuments depicting triumphs is the sacrificial bull, led along dressed and crowned to signify its identity with the triumphator. But the bull is not alone. In nearly every one of these depictions, walking alongside the bull is an official who carries over his shoulder a double-bladed ax, the instrument of the victim’s death. The parallel might appear to be coincidental, but two remarkable details—Simon’s link to the community of faith via his sons and his having just arrived from out of town—suggest that Mark envisions his role as divinely planned. Like the official who bears the ax, Simon carries the instrument of the sacrifice’s—in this case Jesus’—death: the cross.
 Crucifixions were common enough in the Roman world that major cities set aside special places for them. The crucified bodies, in various stages of suffering or decomposition, provided a public warning to potential malefactors. In Rome, the place was the Campus Esquilinus; in Jerusalem, it may have been either the site of the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre or on the Mount of Olives, across the Kidron Valley from the Temple. Mark gives the name of the place, Golgotha; then, untypically, he translates it for his readers: “which means the place of a skull.” In Hebrew Golgotha denotes not an empty skull but more generally the head. This is also true of the Greek translation. Therefore, “place of the head” or perhaps “place of the death’s-head” would be a more accurate rendering.8
 Mark may be offering this translation simply to heighten the sense of the macabre. But there is a remarkable coincidence in the name of the place that may constitute another allusion to the triumph. Dionysius of Halicarnassus records the legend that, during the laying of a foundation for a temple on a certain Roman hill, a human head was discovered with its features intact. Soothsayers proclaimed:
“Romans, tell your fellow citizens it is ordered by fate that the place in which you found the head shall be the head of all Italy,” (and) since that time the place is called the Capitoline hill from the head that was found there; for the Romans call heads capita.9
The temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, or more simply the Capitolium, was the terminus of every Roman triumph. The procession would wind through the streets to the Forum, culminating in the ascent of the triumphator to the place of sacrifice—the place named after a death’s-head. The name “Golgotha” (head) may simply be a linguistic and historical coincidence, but to an audience prepared by the context of Mark’s gospel to look for double meanings, it would be a glaring and meaningful coincidence: Golgotha was the Capitolium (head) to which the triumphator ascended.
Before reaching Golgotha, the soldiers offer Jesus myrrhed wine, but he refuses to drink (Mark 15:23).10 Why the offer of this expensive delicacy, why the refusal, and why interject this seemingly trivial detail here?
The supreme moment of the triumph is the moment of sacrifice, depicted in detail by numerous sculptors of the period. Just prior to the sacrifice of the bull, or in a few cases simultaneous with the sacrifice, the triumphator was offered a cup of wine, which he would refuse and then pour on the altar (or, more rarely, on the bull itself). The wine obviously signifies the precious blood of the victim, and the links between triumphator, wine and victim signify their connection—which is also confirmed by the similar dress worn by both the triumphator and the bull. In other words, the bull is the god who dies and appears as the victor in the person of the triumphator.
All of this is shorthand for a long process of ritual development, but for our purposes the formulaic element is clear. At the crucial moment of a triumph, the moment of sacrifice, expensive wine is poured out. Significantly, the very next words in Mark’s account are “and they crucified him.” This again suggests a close association between wine and sacrifice. In an earlier scene in Mark’s narrative, the Last Supper, Jesus himself makes the connection between the drinking of wine, sacrifice and triumphant renewal: “He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God’” (Mark 14:24–25). The refusal of wine is one of the many details suggesting that the painful humiliation of the crucifixion is in fact a victorious triumph.
Another remarkable detail reported by Mark is that Jesus is executed with “two bandits, one on his right and one on his left” (Mark 15:27). This account not only appears to be an unnecessary interruption of the narrative but also draws the attention of readers to the shamefulness of the crucifixion. Why accentuate the scandal of the cross by associating Jesus with criminals?
In the world of Mark’s audience, placement on the right and left of an elevated person signified royal enthronement. Earlier in Mark’s narration, for example, he tells us that two disciples request to be seated on Jesus’ right and left when he is enthroned (Mark 10:37). In the triumph itself, the triumphator is normally alone, but the few exceptions are notable both because they occur at the point of elevation to the rostrum and because they occur very near to the time of Mark’s writing.
Suetonius, a Roman historian of the early second century, records a triumph of the youthful Tiberius, who “took his seat beside Augustus between the two consuls.”11 In 44 A.D., Claudius returned to Rome after a military campaign and celebrated a triumph. “In this he followed precedent, even ascending the steps of the Capitol on his knees, with his sons-in-law supporting him on either side.”12 When Vitellius accepted the title “imperator” at Lugdunum in 68 A.D., he “spoke in praise of [his conquering generals] Valens and Caecina in public assembly and placed them on either side of his own curule chair.”13 In 71 A.D. Vespasian celebrated his triumph over the Jews with Titus beside him in the triumphal chariot and Domitian riding alongside;14 the three then performed together the culminating events of the triumph.15
In each of these instances, a threesome appears elevated above an admiring throng in order to express power through solidarity. It is probable, then, that the crucifixion of criminals on either side of Jesus is a conscious expression of the mockery of his kingship on the part of the soldiers. That is, they are the mock equivalent of those displayed on either side of an enthroned ruler.
 To summarize Mark’s narrative as now decoded: The praetorian guard gathers early in the morning to proclaim the triumphator. They dress him in the purple triumphal garb and place a crown of laurel on his head. The soldiers shout in acclamation of his lordship (“Hail, King of the Jews” [Mark 15:18]) and perform acts of homage to him. They accompany him through the streets of the city. The sacrifice walks alongside a person who carries the implement of the victim’s death. The procession ascends to the place of the (death’s) head, where the sacrifice is to take place. The triumphator is offered ceremonial wine. He does not drink it but pours it out on the altar at the moment of sacrifice. Then, at the moment of being lifted up before the people, at the moment of the sacrifice, the triumphator is again acclaimed as lord (“The King of the Jews” [Mark 15:26]), and his viceregents appear with him in confirmation of his glory. The epiphany of the triumphator is accompanied by divine portents (“The curtain of the Temple was torn in two” [Mark 15:38]), confirming that he is one with the gods.
The opening sentence of Mark’s gospel identifies Jesus as “the Son of God,” but no human voice gives him that title until after he dies. Struck with wonder as he watches Jesus breathe his last, a Roman centurion gasps, “Truly this man was God’s Son!” (Mark 15:39). The moment of Jesus’ death, the moment of his sacrifice, is the culmination of Mark’s parable of triumph. But Mark presents the crucifixion as an “anti-triumph”—with Jesus mocked and killed—to show that the seeming scandal of the cross is actually an exaltation of Christ.
Mark’s anti-triumph, I would argue, was composed in reaction to the self-deification of the emperors Gaius (37–41 A.D.) and especially Nero (54–68 A.D.). Gaius would regularly visit the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus to engage in confidential chats with the deity.16 He required that courtiers hail him as Jupiter and built a temple to his own godhead containing a statue with whom he regularly exchanged clothing. Similarly, Nero’s conduct in public triumphs confirms his own flirtation with divinity. At the culmination of one procession, King Tiridates paid obeisance to Nero by saying, “I have come to thee, my god, to worship thee as I do Mithras.”17 On this occasion, Nero was dressed in triumphal garb, and the canopy over his head depicted him in the attitude of the god, “driving a chariot, with golden stars gleaming all about him.”18 During another triumph, Nero was hailed as, among other things, Apollo and “Divine Voice.”19
As these events were occupying center stage in Rome, members of the Roman church were struggling to understand and communicate the notion that God had revealed himself in the person of Jesus, who was understood as both the Crucified One and the Coming One. It would have been natural for them to make comparisons between the Lord Christ and the Lord Caesar, and it would have been natural for them to look for evidence of God’s sovereignty in Jesus’ humility. Is it not plausible that Mark would arrange some of these details to hint at a correspondence between the mockery of Jesus and the empty, futile adoration of the imperator? For Mark, it is the mocked Jesus, not the gaudy Roman emperor, who is the true epiphanic triumphator.
An earlier version of this article appeared in New Testament Studies 41:1 (January 1995). This article has been reprinted with the permission of Cambridge University Press.
TruthWe can have our own beliefs and convictions but that doesn't mean they are always right. If Truth exists than it doesn't change, we are either right with our beliefs and convictions or we are wrong. We have only have the freedom to hold those right or wrong beliefs. • • • • • • • Lat 24 HoursWith all of the data, literature, and archaeological findings available to everyone, it is, as always, a matter of faith and/or belief. What you or I believe is all that matters. There is no requirement that we agree on anything except that there are facts and there are truths Question everything, believe what you will. PAX • • • • • • • GethsemaneBrilliant! An unbiased reader should appreciate this clarification of the confusing Gethsemane story. Thank you! • • • • • • • Last 24 HoursIt surely wasn't the last 24 hours of that week that gave meaning to that time but the last 72. With the Passover being on a Wednesday evening (Unleavened Bread began on Thursday), Jesus, being God's lamb, had died that afternoon and was buried just before sunset. As He said, three days and three nights in the earth, meaning He arose late on the weekly Sabbath, again just at sunset. Had He not walked from the tomb, 72 hours after His burial as He promised, our faith would be for naught; no Savior, no high priest, no advocate, no returning Lord of lords and King of kings. It was His resurrection that changed the world. P.S. "An Easter Discussion", surely you jest? • • • • • • • The Eucharist�Exploring Its OriginsA very bad opening premise... "What Jesus was doing at the Last Supper has not been understood for the better part of 2,000 years." Were the speaker of such a sentence standing in a pulpit, I'd suggest it was time to leave the pew. • • • • • • • History/scholarship vs. FaithWell, I spent a pleasant fifteen minutes reading all that has been written. I glad that, after 50 years as a pastor, although I haven't read all the history or delved into every book, my faith is just a simple belief that regardless of this or that "fact," God loves us and will take care of us forever. That's enough for me. • • • • • • • Who was invited to the Last Supper?During the Last Supper, Jesus is with his disciples and a traitor. Who are the disciples and who the traitor in an Essene community changing into a Christian community in Antiochus? We will deal here with the disciples. Any institution, political, industrial or religious will be identified by a list of members. The top line will name or recall the founder, followed by the present leader and his team. Is the list of twelve apostles informing us on the organisation of the Essene community and its mutation towards a Christian Community? The Church Fathers and the Syriac sources give us as early leaders of the community James the Just, 'overseer and Apostle', and also Simon ben Cephalas (Cephalas and Cephas are equivalents and explain the Simon called Peter) and Jude, brother of James. The first three names on the apostle list gives us Simon, James and John brother of James. If you can accept that John later replaced Jude as brother of James when the fourth Gospel became 'en vogue' and John the pet disciple of Rome, we can carry on together. Community leaders and the list of apostles have names in common. If we continue looking at the list, Thaddeus and Thomas and Jude are the same person (you can always contact me if wanting more details). The last names of the list, the traitor set apart, we find Thomas, James son of Alphaeus (the Greek equivalent of Cephalas), Thaddaeus and Simon the zealot The list repeats itself and gives the impression of conveying the Antiochus community administration list at different periods of its evolution. It may even echo opposition between an ancient brotherhood of Cephas and a later brotherhood of the Lord to which Peter is then associated. Do the names on the list side with James the traditionalist or are they on Mark's side, supporting a different community project under the Messiah Jesus. The apostles, except sometime Peter, seem to fail to understand the wisdom of Messiah Jesus. Most scholars have noticed how �dumb� they are and agree that 'something is wrong'. They are often scolded by Jesus, even Peter who has to face the severe 'Va de retro Satanas'. It is therefore difficult to accept the Apostles as original followers of the avant-garde supported by Mark. If the apostles represent an opposition group against Mark and his Jesus faction, it should show in his gospel. Look at the story (in Mark chapter 3) of Jesus coming to Nazareth: his brothers meet him saying they must restrict him for he is out of his mind. There is an obvious animosity here. The names of the 'brothers' who offend Jesus are Simon and Jose and James and Jude. Three of the names belong to the list of apostles and leaders of the traditional Essene community. (Jose or Joseph are later additions once the genealogy has been coined by Mathew). The last Supper, as all legends, has multiple layers to it. In the deepest layer, Jesus is surrounded only by opponents to his doctrinal and political position within the community. Initially, all were traitors to his cause. • • • • • • • Resurrection: an Essene or a Pauline forgery?The idea of resurrection and bodily survival is attested in the Old Testament and in dissident Qumran, confirmed again by the 'stone scroll' and revival after three days. Gospel narroators were not 'journalists' and were not just telling stories but had something serrious to prove. Within the Antiochus Essene community turning into a Christian community 'Mark' is at the centre of intense polemics against the 'traditionalists' dormant under the shadow of eschatology and the nearby synagogue. They are under the stern leadership of James 'overseer and apostle' of the Essene Antiochus community. The final argument within the intense intra community climate 'dividing the house' is the Resurrection. 'Mark' has simply reinterpreted Isaiah: 'Those who do not follow the Law will be dead for ever' a quotation that slides into 'those who do not follow the New Law will de dead for ever' (adressing the Pharesees) which slides further into 'those who do not follow the New Messiah will not know eternal life'(adressing the intra community division). Resurrection was the final anathema thrown into the face of 'the others' telling them that the Temple is the House of Eternal Death', never will you survive if you do not join us, we who represent the 'House of Eternal Life'. Resurrection has been considered by those who depreciate the Gospels as an Essene fraude. Not in the least do they represent such thought. It is one of the most magnificent slogans that could have been invented and probably gave the tenants of such a bold policy against the Institution the nick name of 'Christians'. Resurrection, as later understood by the Greco-Romans, out of contexte and less concerned by the original culture, is read on face value and is in reality a Pauline forgery while exporting the Gospels and tempting his listeners into eternal life. The Gospels were true to their epoch and milieu, no lies, just a different language. Resurrection belongs to the field of political rhetorics and has its full meaning as such. • • • • • • • Holy SepulchreI've read the article of Dan Bahat about the holy Sepulchre. One thing I've been wondering about is the inconsistency of the texts in the Gospels about the grave in which Jesus supposedly has been laid. Matthew writes that this grave was Joseph's, but Luke and especially John has a different view on this matter. John says in 19:41-42 'Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb wherein was never man yet laid. There then because of the Jews' Preparation (for the tomb was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus'.It seems to me that John says a totally different thing than Matthew. John really says that, because the new grave was very close to the crucifixion site and the time for Preparation for Shabbat and Passover was at hand, they laid the body of Jesus in a temporary grave. There is no mention that this grave was the grave owned bij Joseph. Therefore I must conclude that this convenient nearby grave was used for only a couple of days.I suppose that after the Shabbat the family of Jesus, more specifically his brothers brought him to a family grave, probably somewhere around Jerusalem or in the Galilee. I must suppose this because for the Jews 'to be gathered to their fathers' or better said, to lie in a family grave was very important. • • • • • • • Sheiman/Thornton Survival ResponseI don't know why you folks are arguing about whether or not he survived the crucifixion - DEAD BODIES DON'T BLEED! If he bled after being pierced, then he was obviously still alive at that time. Check your medical references. If they had cut an entire foot off, he would've been bled out by gravity, but a simple incision will NOT bleed on a dead body. The gospel writers make it plain that he was still alive at that point. • • • • • • • Last SupperIt is interesting to read the various comments. What about Christ and His beautiful & humble example of foot washing which portrayed the attitudes that we must have to be called Christians. • • • • • • • Both the sacrificers and Simon came in from the countryside to carry the weaponThe record appears to come at least a century after Mark's gospel was written, but it may be worth a footnote to add to the record that according to Heliodorus's "An Ethiopian Story", Book 3, we read: At the head of the procession came the sacrificial animals, led on the halter by the men who were to perform the holy rites, countryfolk in country costume . . . . and in their right hands they each brandished a double-headed axe." Was it then a traditional part of the Triumph for the sacrificers to come from the country, presumably where the cattle for sacrifice were bred and where there were more readily found the practiced butchers? Simon of Cyrene, the one who carried the instrument of sacrifice, was dragooned from the countryside. • • • • • • • The Word became FleshMr. Geoff Hudson, A review of your most recent post and your prior posts reveal a person who has devoted much time to studying spiritual things. Yet, in many of your posts you are quick to dismiss the express words of Scripture in favor of some speculative idea of what might have happened or what is more reasonable to believe. While you are certainly free to reject the veracity of the Scriptural account, in doing so you deny yourself the ability to have a deep, meaningful, personal relationship with the living God for God inhabits His Word. Remember: The Word became Flesh. Flesh is real. It can be touched. It can be known experientially. In stark contrast, your lofty theoreticals are full of spiritual thoughts, but are devoid of real meaning...they are empty words. How sad. How tragic. That you might willingly trade the richness of the Living Word for words which have no life. I say this not to demean you, but to challenge you to consider what you are missing. • • • • • • • The Execution of a Popular Prophet Must Have Been DiscreteThat a popular prophet was crucified in full view of crowds, with death after a prolonged period of suffering, before Passover seems most unlikely. If the authorities did this to avoid trouble they went about it exactly the wrong way. A more feasible discrete procedure would have been to execute the prophet after The Feast (I have suggested after the last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles) by a swift traditional stoning. I don't believe Pilate was involved at all. Romans would hardly have been so crass as to risk any unrest. • • • • • • • what really happened in GethsemeneIn response to RN Hall - Saying most of Jesus'life was not observed is really quite a inconceivable! You mean Mary couldn't have told Luke and Matthew the details surrounding the birth? Jesus couldn't have relayed to his disciples the details of his encounter with Satan? The disciples must have fallen asleep the very second Jesus asked them to watch. They couldn't have heard five minutes of his prayer before falling asleep, which happens to be about the amount of text recorded? Luke quotes Jesus saying that they were witnesses of these things. Lk 24:48 The book of Acts is all about the Apostles relaying what they witnessed. Think about it. Would they all but one die a martyr's death for some story they made up? • • • • • • • CrucifixionMr. Sheiman, you are mistaken that Christ survived the Crucifixion. His feet were anchored to the cross so he could push himself up to inhale. To speed death, the Romans would break the legs of the crucified. When they came to Jesus, he was already dead (having already voluntarily given up His spirit-Jn 19:30). They placed the spear in His side and the flow of blood mixed with water confirmed He was dead. The Romans would not have let anyone off the cross who was not dead. Because Jesus was already dead, there was no need for his legs to be broken. Unwittingly, the Romans fulfilled Scripture that no bone of Messiah, as God's sacrificial lamb, would be broken. (See John 19:34-37 and Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12) • • • • • • • Explanation for the ResurrectionRoman law called for the subject to remain on the "cross" for 24 hours, but because Jesus was murdered on erev Shabbath he was taken down after 9 hours. Crucifiction included to "open" the subject with a wip from head to toe. Jesus survived the crucifiction but probably died of shock and mass infection. • • • • • • • The Last SupperFor an insightful commentary on the symbolism of The Last Supper from a Jewish perspective, I have always enjoyed Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum. His ministry web site can be accessed at http://www.ariel.org/ffruit.htm#top and scroll down to "mbs-114 The Feast of Pesach (Passover)" for the commentary. The impact this has had on my life is substantial. I wholeheartedly recommend Dr. Fruchtenbaum to anyone who wishes to know (and not just know about) the historical Jesus. • • • • • • • Beware of Literalistic 'Biblical Historians' Spouting-On About EasterOver on Crosstalk 2 pastor J West sounds the praises of an article about Easter written by someone who fancies himself as a biblical historian, one Dr John Dickson. (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/22551) Dr John Dickson is the director of the Centre for Public Christianity (www.publicchristianity.org) and an honorary associate of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University. On page 4 of his article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/facts-and-friction-of-easter /2008/03/21/1205602592557.html?page=4) Dickson writes: "Jews were perhaps the most crucified people in antiquity. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus both report an incident where 800 Pharisees were crucified on one day;" Now the DSS do not even mention Pharisees, let alone 800 being crucified. Obviously pastor West did not read the article that he recommended. And one should be wary when reading the words of literalistic biblical historians such as Dickson, especially when they are recommended by pastors. • • • • • • • Pilate was Agrippa I?There are doubts about the length of Pilate's term of office - a nice round figure of 10 years apparently. Almost everything in the writings attributed to Josephus about Pilate doesn't make sense, but would be more appropriate for the king Agrippa I. I therefore suspect that it was Agrippa I who was persecuting the prophets and was ultimately responsible for the death of The Prophet. The sentence and execution of the prophet would have been under Jewish law. The prophet was accused of being a false prophet and he would have undergone a traditional stoning procedure which meant being pushed from a high place before the first stone was dropped on the fallen victim to stop the heart. • • • • • • • The EucharistA nice piece of speculation but many key conclusions are asserted without support from any sources other than Mr. Chilton's imagination. (Example: "Jesus’ point rather was that, in the absence of a Temple permitting his view of purity to be practiced, wine was his blood of sacrifice, and bread was his flesh of sacrifice!" -- where did this come from?!) Mr. Chilton's reconstruction ignores/dismisses the consistent meaning given to the last supper by the early church and the testimony of the early church fathers. The "historical" facade is internally inconsistent as well. The traditional meaning is rejected because it would make Jesus very unJewish (example: "What Jew would tell another to drink blood, even symbolic blood?"). At the same time, the opposition of the authorities and even some of Jesus' followers is predicated on Jesus' break with Jewish orthodoxy or orthopraxy. Are we to abandon the traditional understanding on the grounds that, while Jesus was a rebel, he just wasn't rebellious enough? The thesis doesn't hold up as analysis although it could be deemed a good read. Anne Rice hasn't gotten to this segment of Jesus' life yet so it may be that Mr. Chilton has gotten the jump on her. • • • • • • • The EucharistMost, most interesting and logical • • • • • • • Garden of Gethsemane Not The Place of Jesus ArrestRESPONSE TO: "The Garden Of Gethsemane: Not The Place of Jesus' Arrest" by Joan E. Taylor - Biblical Archaeological Review Dr. Robert B. Turcotte - March 21, 2008 - Biblical Archaeological Review Response: I have been to the Gethsemane Cave and I have some opinions which differ from Taylor. As I read the various points my mind retorted, this is not new, and, so what? I apologize for my somewhat long response, but the Taylor article is about 340 lines long, small type and is rather convoluted. Guessing: By my count there are some 340 lines of information posited. Most of the information is an argument to prove that the cave near the Garden of Gethsemane is the place where Jesus was arrested, and, thus the Garden of Gethsemane is not. Taylor provides no Archaeological evidence for this. To this end, almost the entire article is devoted to proving that the cave had been used to house two olive presses and store olive oil; devoted to using known differences in the Gospel accounts to support the theory that the Garden of Gethsemane is not a garden as opposed to using agricultural data, and that Jesus took the Apostles there to go to bed after the Last Supper, thus they had to go to the cave because it was too cold outside to sleep. I wonder what it will be another two weeks? Only 19 lines are devoted to the "testimony" of three pilgrims regarding the Gethsemane cave. Garden of the Oil Press: So using Taylor's own tools and words, I say: So what? Oral Tradition, which has its very valid place, means Gethsemane is the Garden of the Gethsemane; the Garden of the Oil Press; like the Mount of Olives. Taylor's point is meaningless. Would we not expect to find gardens of olive trees on the Mount of Olives and an Olive Press? And was not the Mount of Olives the gathering place for the people from the Galilee at Jerusalem for festivals? And others occupied other geographic areas surrounding the city because here was not room for all inside the city. So Jesus went into the city by day and came out from the city to the Mount of Olives at night. Keµpos: A very large point made by Taylor is the true meaning of the word keµpos. According to Taylor: "Keµpos" can be translated as 'garden,' but to Taylor it is really a general term, more accurately translated as “a cultivated tract of land. It can refer to anything from a large orchard or plantation to a small plot." St. John called Gethsemane a keµpos. The implication being it could have been a small plot or as Taylor suggests, that keµpos could actually be "small market garden" thus by extension unsuitable for praying. This is silly. Taylor forgets that the olive is a fruit and would be cultivated as in a garden. The Mount of Olives was literally a garden of olives. Agricultural History of the Mediterranean: Taylor should do well to pay attention to the agricultural history of the Mediterranean and Olive Tree. Olive tree cultivation and the production of olives and olive oil has been a catalyst in the evolution of the civilization in the Mediterranean region where some of the earliest human civilizations developed. As the cultivation of grain crops transformed the hunters and gatherers into farming societies, so the cultivation of the olive tree represents an important cultural milestone in the evolution of Mediterranean cultures. The olive tree represents a cultural component that helped societies develop a higher level of cultural awareness. With the cultivation of the olive tree humans were able to develop commercial, cultural and social activities and interactions that were unimaginable earlier. Of course the Garden was a cultivated grove of olive trees close by to where they could be processed. Olive oil was one of the most valuable products of the world at that time. This point which Taylor stretches is confounding. Going out of; to leave: Taylor says John's account "goes like this": "After Jesus had spoken these words, he went out (from Jerusalem) with his disciples across the Kidron Valley to where there was a garden (/cultivated area added by Taylor, not John) into which he and his disciples entered." John's account picks up with Jesus entering the Garden and then being arrested. Taylor wants it both ways. In John, Taylor uses the one translation of Jesus and his disciples to enter (eis) "into" the cultivated area and says "eis" thus must imply there is a wall surrounding it, surrounding the cave entrance. How did we get here? So we can get out. Later Taylor says in John that Jesus (John 18:4), and these are Taylor's words, "went out" (exeµlthen) of something within the garden to meet the soldiers, meaning out of the cave. It seems one cannot enter into or someone cannot have went out unless it is an enclosure with a roof over it. Maybe Jesus just went out of the Garden of Gethsemane, not a cave, to meet the soldiers as John says, or as other translations say: "Jesus then came forward" (to meet the soldiers). In the same translation Taylor uses, we repeat John: "he went out of Jerusalem." Was there a cave in Jerusalem from which Jesus "went out'? With such flimsy evidence and massaging of words, how can such conclusions be drawn? He went into the park, he went out of the park. He went into the Garden, he went out of the Garden. This an awful lot about nothing. The difficulty of word translation and meaning should be guarded. All of the this is to set up the idea that Jesus had to have went out of something more than a garden, it had to be the olive oil press cave or complex. Taylor posited the hypothesis and then went looking for things to bolster the hypothesis. Taylor also brings in the climate of Jerusalem at the time of Passover as being too chilly for sleep outside, so of course Jesus and the Apostles must have been in the cave. Taylor even quotes the account of Peter warming himself by the fire as Jesus' trial is going on to prove it was chilly. But even here the accounts differ, but Taylor uses this to an advantage. To Sleep Or Not To Sleep?: Jesus took the Apostles to the Garden of Gethsemane to pray, not to sleep. But Taylor insists Jesus took them there to sleep because it was nighttime. That is Taylor's one reason. This is not what Matthew, Mark and Luke say; the three accounts say Jesus went there to pray, not to go to bed. Why disbelieve these accounts in this matter but accept these accounts in other matters in attempting to prove your case? And Luke's account does not say, as Taylor claims, or indicates that: "it (Gethsemane) is the place where Jesus regularly slept." In Mark, 14:34-35, "And he said to them, 'My soul is sorrowful to the point of death. Wait here and keep awake.' And going on a little further he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, this hour might pass him by." Note, there is no mention that Jesus "went out" (exeµlthen) of anything or any words which could be translated as such; he went on a little further and prayed, he was outside. Why would Taylor believe Jesus took the disciples to a cave to go to sleep as opposed to pray? Why? It fits Taylor's hypothesis. In using John, Taylor insists that Jesus "went out" (exeµlthen) something, and that something must of course be an overhead enclosure. What other conclusion could there be? Taylor tries to cover this by writing without support another hypothesis: "They either rented the property, or else, the owner had offered it to them out of respect for Jesus. We can imagine them entering the warm cave, (Taylor says) lighting lamps and taking of their coats to sleep for bed. Perhaps Jesus was restless, and called Peter, James and John over to him asking them to stay alert." And again, John picks up the story after the Last Supper with Jesus' arrest in the Garden, or as Taylor would have it, the "cultivated area". Could people after a Passover meal feeling sleepy, wearing a cloak and a coat sit on the ground and fall asleep even if it were cold? I can imagine that. Taylor says it was too cold to sleep outside. Again Taylor assumes the purpose for which Jesus brought them to the Garden of Gethsemane was to go to bed for the night. Taylor must have that assumption. Yet even Taylor repeats that Jesus returns "to find them all fast asleep." Is Jesus not surprised by this? Luke says: 22:45-46: "When he rose from prayer he went to the disciples and found them sleeping for sheer grief. " (Jesus is surprised?) 'Why are you sleeping?' he said to them. 'Get up and pray not to be put to the test.' I hope Jesus did not wake the masses of other people who were in the cave also. Oh I forgot, Taylor says it was only Peter James and John, the rest were in the cave. Or were they? According to Taylor, in Mark "Jesus asks his disciples to sit down while he prays. He then 'takes to himself'' Peter, James and John ... invites them to one side, not that he goes away with them anywhere. Distressed, he asks the three to remain here and keep awake." The others Taylor presumes are allowed to slumber. Taylor suggests that Jesus never left the garden area, the garden area by Taylor's description was the walled-in the area in front of the cave. The Garden of Gethsemane is in front of the cave. Taylor describes the cave and the garden as one; it is today except for the road, and the wall the Franciscans Friars have put up to protect the olive trees. Taylor hypotheses that it is extremely improbable that Jesus and his disciples would have spent the night in the open sleeping amid the olive trees; nights are cold and the dew heavy. There is the presumption again. Did Jesus go to the Garden to pray, knowing his hour was coming, or did he go to the Garden to go to bed? According to Taylor, Jesus never left the Garden area and the disciples were always close by. We have to choose. Well, let us think about the olive oil complex on the Mountain of Olive (Trees) which provided the space for the press and storage of oil and the olive trees. It is true that the Fall is the harvest time for olives. It is interesting that this harvest time approaches the cooling seasons of Autumn and Winter in Judea. Taylor asserts that the spacious cave of Gethsemane not only had room for a "mass of people" in which to keep warm, but it would have been a useful storage area as well. In historical times such as this period, olives which had dropped to the ground or which may have spoiled were made into olive oil and such was stored in closed-mouthed earthenware vats to discourage rancidity. The cave would provide protection from sunlight and heat. Virgin olive oil, the highest quality would have been processed as we do now, cold pressed, without heating. Why Taylor chooses to emphasize heat as most important in the process is unknown. The stone vessels holding the oil would have been covered and kept in a cool, dark place, like the Gethsemane Cave to prevent oxidation. This was a valuable crop, heat was known as its enemy. If you have been to Gethsemane, you know how cold the Gethsemane Cave is, even in April. The coldness strikes you. I do not believe the owner of that olive garden, that estate, would want a mass of people warming up his storage rooms with lamps or fires and warming up his olive oil in the cave. All through Taylor's dissertation there are posits of supposed common knowledge and "common sense conclusions" bolstering the hypotheses. The agriculture and economics of time need to be considered as well as what the witnesses who were closest to the events have to say. Below is a picture of the olive oil storage room at Amatzia. This is what we would expect to see under the existing floor at the Gethsemane Cave. And these are the type vessels we would also expect to see, but they would have been sealed. It is only within the last 50 years that people world wide have begun to expect non-rancid olive oil because of the advances in storage and containers. Amatzia, the headquarters of the Bar-Kochba revolt against the Romans (132-135 C.E.) is located in a labyrinth of over 40 interconnected underground rooms. This olive oil storage room, with its grooved floor, allowed oil spilled to be saved and recollected in a stone-cut depression in the floor. The storage pots are replicas of original pots unearthed here. This does not look like a very comfortable place to stay. Hardly the place for tables as described by Taylor. This does not mean there were no tables in the cave. But what is being describes is two huge olive presses and storage areas for the Autumn and Winter months and then sleeping quarters for "masses of people" during Passover. Taylor admits the actual floor of the cave cannot be seen. This storage room in Amatzia shows us just how valuable olive oil was to the ancient Israelites and the architecture in use. We do not expect a change in storage technology over a 100 year period. This was it. Was the cave an Inn or an olive press? Could it be both? And why does Taylor insist on Jesus not being arrested in an olive garden; in the Garden of Gethsemane. An Analogy: The last thing we may want to contemplate is who came to arrest Jesus? Why? It goes to the thinking and methodology. These are the accounts; it is alright that they are different as it is with the accounts of other incidents in the life of Jesus because this is how they are remembered by the witnesses there at the time and passed on: Matthew 26:47-50 "And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came up, accompanied by a great multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and elders of the people . . And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him." Mark 14:43 - "And immediately while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came up, accompanied by a multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders." Luke 22:47 - "While He was still speaking, behold, a multitude came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him." John 18:12 - "So the Roman cohort and the commander, and the officers of the Jews, arrested Jesus and bound Him." All that was seemingly important was that a lot of people came to arrest Jesus. But why so many? Was it because Judas told the chief priests Jesus would likely be with a group of 12; was that a lot of men for those days? Or was it because it might be likely Jesus would be with his many followers? Did Judas tell the chief priests about Jesus' custom to pray with the 12 alone in the Garden, would there be trouble? Was it because there were masses of people, as Taylor asserts, in the cave and there would be resistance from the masses? Or, was it because Jesus was on the Mount of Olives where all the Galileans were camping out for Passover and there could be great resistance anticipated? No, not all the Galileans could fit in the cave. Who cares? It is part of the observation of the witnesses who were there at the time. This is what happened. It is like the "poor young man" as Taylor describes him, in the sindoµn who followed Jesus after the arrest and according to Mark 14:50-54: "A young man who followed him had nothing on but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the cloth in their hands and ran away naked." Noone knows who the young man is, where he came from, if he was aroused from another camp by the noise, there are no details given. Some would like to think he is John the Evangelist but that is not even confirmed in tradition and always qualified. So how does Taylor justify that instance as proof of Jesus not being in the Garden of Olives but being in the Cave of Olives? It was cold. Some climatologist have described this Judean season as sometimes being North America's "Indian Summer". Who knows the temperature that night? The temperature in Jerusalem today at 9:00 P.M. was 65 degrees Fahrenheit, forecast is for 66 degrees, 9:00 P.M. Saturday night, and 69 degrees, 9 P.M. on Sunday night in Jerusalem. So much for the cold. In April 2003 I stayed at the Gethsemane Hermitage across from the Gethsemane Cave. I watched the Palm Sunday procession from the Hermitage grounds and was outside at night both there and in Jerusalem across from the New Gate. It was warm not cold or chilly. The year 30 C.E. matches Thursday as the Jewish Passover, and Jesus' estimated age of 33, puts Pilate in Judea, and places Passover as 14 Nissan, April 6. Hmmmm. We know of the correction to the calendar. The most likely explanation, if anyone cares, as to why there where so many people in the arresting party could be: that was the Roman way. John mentions a cohort with a commander arresting Jesus. A Roman Cohort of a Roman Legion would consist of five centuries of 160 crack troops, (800 men) if it were of the first cohort or six centuries of 80 troops (400 men) if it were the second through the tenth Cohort. The Roman way would have been to ensure the capture with overwhelming force. It makes no difference. Taylor's dissertation here unfortunately is not like this. It does make a difference; so we need more proof than the conjecture than Taylor has provided. Taylor does offer accounts of a nun, Egeria, in 382, and an early pilgrim, Arculf (7th century) as proof for the cave as being the site of Jesus' arrest because they went there, not because they were present. Theodosius in the early 6th century is mentioned as observing "This place is in a cave and even now two hundred monks go down there." The question is what place? "After Theodosius, writers fail to mention this feature" (the cave) Taylor writes. Taylor believes this is because everyone somehow knew it was a cave. This has less validity than the placing of Golgotha as the place of crucifixion or the Garden of Gethsemane as Jesus' place of arrest; it is not even traditional. The claim is also made that not until the 12th century that anyone thought of the Garden of Gethsemane as the place of the arrest. I never knew that before. I need more enlightenment. The point is, that of 340 lines in this article, the above proofs take up 16 lines. Academic Freedom: Academic freedom, in our times, has allowed for all kinds of speculation based upon opinion and interpretation as to what might have been, especially with respect to what is now called "The Historical Jesus". Here is the difference between speculation that provides opportunity for publication and fact which enlightens: I was talking with two Jewish women about a recent trip to Jerusalem. One was more knowledgeable, the other was a regular, every day, good practicing Jew. I happened to mention a picture I saw in book of the two ramps leading up to and down from the Temple on the South side toward the City of David. You know the one, where the stone block had been removed and there was just enough light to snap a picture of the two ramps, some columns and decorative patterns on the ceiling. There on the ceiling were drawn depictions of birds and flowers. The second woman was shocked and turned to the other and said: "I thought there were to be no images." The first woman said "Yes, but this is outside the Temple." Such are the treasures awaiting the eyes of this and future generations. Treasures which are real, factually documented; not guesses and hypothesis; things having a real connection to the period, not conjecture. The talent to form these kinds of hypotheses and ability to force pieces of puzzles together from different but seemingly related boxes of puzzle pieces makes fodder for publication. We must be careful about that which we put forth as factual conclusions and that which we dream. That is the responsibility of the those who apply the scientific method. • • • • • • • The 'Place' of The Prophet's ArrestIn all three synoptics the prophet is arrested in a location referred to as a 'place'. In Matthew and Mark the 'place' is Gethsemane. In Luke it is the Mount of Olives. In John it is an olive grove. I suggest that the real 'place' where the prophet was praying (Mk.14.32, Lk.22.40,41) and the place of his subsequent arrest was the sanctuary - the prophet 'went as usual', not to the Mount of Olives, but to the sanctuary. The other prophets were keeping watch and praying outside the sanctuary. The situation was similar to that of Zechariah in Luke 1:8-11. The prophet was no doubt praying that the Spirit would be poured out. He was well aware that he was due for arrest by the chief priests who knew exactly where to find him without any informer. • • • • • • • The FeastDid Israel’s innovative prophet tell two of his fellow prophets to ‘go into the city’ (Mk.14.16) and prepare ‘the Passover’ (Mk.14.16)? I suggest not, but that he did instruct the two to go into the temple and prepare the sanctuary. The altar of incense had to be kept burning and the lights had to be lit. This would have been immediately before the sunset that started the last great day of The Feast on a Sabbath. The so-called ‘guest room’ or ‘large upper room’ was the sanctuary. Our prophet had an authority comparable to that of any previous prophet of Israel. The two prophets were to meet a fellow prophet carrying a jar of water (Mk.14.13). This was for an oblation when water would be poured out into the earth, symbolic of God pouring out the Spirit. It was a daily ritual during The Feast. There was no last supper as such. But when the prophets gathered at the sanctuary, the water of the New Covenant was poured out by the prophet, not for ‘the many’, but for Israel. (Mk.14.24). A remanent clue to what the prophet was proclaiming is in the anachronistic extant text of Jn.7.37-39. On the last and great day of The Feast, the prophet stood (no doubt on the steps to the sanctuary) and proclaimed loudly, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come and drink. Whoever obeys the Spirit, streams of living water will flow from within him”. ‘Living water’ or ‘pure water’ referred to the continual obedient actions of those cleansed by the Spirit. Of course the editor’s of John tell us that up to that time, the Spirit had not yet been given, implying in effect, the Spirit would be given after the Jesus of their story had risen. In another sense, the Spirit wasn’t yet given to Israel, because most of the priests rejected it, preferring the status quo of the temple cult of animal sacrifices for sins. • • • • • • • Jesus Burial placeI was really sad to read the article on the Church of the Holy Sepulcre. Simply because good soil was discovered above the ancient quarry we take a leap of faith and assume that a garden and all manner of trees were grown there!! Ther is another spot which ties in nicely with the biblical account of Jesus' death and burial. That is the Garden tomb also known as Gordon's Calvary. It is said this tomb was not discovered until the 1800's. However I have seen paintings of Jerusalem from the Middle Ages showing the tomb quite clearly. Also in Genesis 22 Abraham was about to offer Isaac on Mount Moriah but God stopped him and provided a lamb/ram. Thus came the saying "In the mountain of the Lord it shall be seen." The ultimate sacrifice had to be on Mount Moriah the mountain of the Lord. And we know from the account that the tomb and the Garden were in the place where He was crucified. If one studies the topography of Jerusalem you will see Mount Moriah is not simply the Temple Mount. But it carries on Northward to the area of the Garden Tomb. In fact the area above the Garden Tomb is the highest point of Mount Moriah 777 metres above sea level. Also in the Lord's time it was outside of the city and beside the approach road to Jerusalem so all could see who "passed by." And where the Garden Tomb is there is ample evidence that in the time of Jesus it would have been the garden of a very wealthy person as a huge cistern and olive press were discovered just yards away from the tomb. And the tomb is right beside Mount Moriah where Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac. Fits in with scripture in a much neater way I think. I feel the Church of the Holy Sepulchre wil prove to be another unproven Catholic relic. • • • • • • • On the First Day of The FeastRather than 'driving' out those that were buying and selling, it is more likely that the prophet began driving out what was being bought and sold in the temple, namely the animals to be sacrificed for sins. The prophet's gripe would then not have been with those conducting business in the temple, but with the ineffectiveness of sacrificing animals as a means of cleansing sins. So there was no turning over tables of moneychangers or driving out people. And as he drove the animals out, he could have quoted a text very applicable to his cause of proclaiming the Spirit - something like: "is it not written: 'My Spirit will be poured out upon the house of Israel' (Ez.39:27), but you have made Israel a house of sacrifice." The prophet's point was that animal sacrifice was not making Israel more moral or pure before God. Israel was acting pure when it was not, and our prophet was in the mould of every other prophet before him. • • • • • • • Chilton's interpretationChilton's interpretation is very insightful, but not entirely new. He said much the same in his "Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography." I liked it then and I still approve. It is good to get some refreshingly new thinking about subjects I have found fascinating since I was in seminary sixty years ago. That does not mean that I accept his approach entirely. After all, any interpretation of scripture is provisional and must remain so so that more light may be shed on the faith we espouse. • • • • • • • The FeastThe time was not Passover but was The Feast. The prophet was not to be arrested during 'The Feast' (Mk.14:1), a term used for the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths during September or October. People had been been building booths to sleep in by spreading branches (Mk.11.8). This was a time when the Spirit of God was expected. The prophet was to be arrested at the end of last great day of The Feast. That day was the eighth day of The Feast and a Sabbath. Thus the prophet was arrested at the end of that Sabbath on the first day of the week. The tradition of The Last Supper stems from the last great day of The Feast of Tabernacles. • • • • • • • Re: Easter/IshtarActually, Passover is determined using a Lunar calendar, and is a Full Moon Celebration. Christ died on the second of two Passover eves kept by differing sects of Judaism. Also, Christ rose from the dead on the eve of the day of the Firstfruits wave sheaf offering in the Temple, which was to be done on the Sunday after the Sabbath that falls in Passover week, NOT the day after the Passover as some Jews suppose based on an incorrect interpretation of Scripture. What this means is that Christ rose from the dead on the Sunday after the Full Moon marking Passover. Furthermore, the Jewish priests looked to the Spring Equinox to correct their Lunar Calendar, and to determine when the Passover Moon was to be, just as the Christian churches use it to determine Easter! Incidentally, the Book of Esther in the Bible has an allegorical prophetic meaning that pertains directly to the Christian Church in relationship to the Great Tribulation and the Last Day. It is therefore not so surprising that Easter would share the name of Esther, the woman who allegorically represents the modern Gentile Church, which was paganized, but is rapidly rediscovering its Jewish roots. Interestingly, the Feast of Purim, which celebrates Esther’s role in Jewish history, falls just two days before Easter this year. You can find out much more about my views on Easter, Purim and Passover by reading an article I just published at the American Chronicles news site which has links to my free PDF articles about this topic. Here’s the link to it: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/55863 Easter blessings, Helena Lehman http://pillar-of-enoch.com • • • • • • • Last SupperI have been reading through the various comments on this article that serve to confirm our lack either of understanding or consensus on sacred matters such as the Supper, but I don't want to let the details of scholarship get in the way of the contribution made here: that Jesus was making an offering consistent with his heritage yet challenging to the established practices within the Temple cultus. I found it helpful in formulating a connection between Melchizedek's offering to Abram and the Supper - another interesting angle to examine! Jesus as priest/king offering the blessings of God...Most High! • • • • • • • The Eucharist—Exploring Its OriginsBruce Chilton's article sounds much like the opinion of the Scribes, Chief Priests and Pharisees in the time of Jesus. They had lots of wisdom and knowledge - but they failed to recognize (and accept) Him. When Adam and Eve chose to listen to the snake rather than their Creator and loving Father, they wounded, crushed and broke the heart of God (Gen. 6:5-6). Ever since then every sinner with every sin does the same – mercilessly, heartlessly, inconsiderately, over and over (Ps. 69:20, Ezek. 6:9). God repeatedly sent His prophets to call His children back to Him, but they were all treated the same as the One who sent them and whose words they spoke. Which one was not rejected, stoned or killed? Matt. 21 & 23. Finally God Himself came down to earth as Immanuel, in Jesus Christ, from the bosom of the Father – to visibly and personally show the world His life, love, patience, grace and power and to speak His words to them. Then He handed Himself over into the hands of His children, his people, mankind, the sinners, the Scribes, Chief priests and Pharisees to do to Him what they chose – and they rejected, martyred and killed Him by crucifixion. Matt. 16:21; 17:12, 22-23; 20:18; 21:33-46 in the parable of the farmers. Mark. 14:41; Luk. 9:22, 44; 17:25; 18:32-33; John 1:11; 7:19; 8:37-40. On the cross, God through Jesus physically and openly displayed what mankind has been doing to Him through sins from the time of Adam and Eve. He was and is still given into the hands of every man to do to Him what they choose - and with every sin He is martyred, crushed and pierced. Peter said: He bore our sins in His body on the tree 1Pet.2:24. Isaiah said: But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was bruised because of our iniquities Is. 53:5. (“min” in orig. Hebrew is “because of” – see Gesenius’ Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon to the O.T, Strong word no. 4480 (e)). For he shall bear their iniquities and He bare the sin of many Is. 53:11 & 12. David and Paul said: The insults with which we insulted God, has fallen on Jesus Ps. 69 & Rom. 15:3. Paul says: “He was delivered (to be killed) because of our offences /transgressions” (Gr. dia = because of) Rom.4:24. And our sins grieve and quench the Holy Spirit of God and of Jesus (Eph4:30, 1Th 5:19). Jesus said what we do to the least, we do to Him. If we hate anyone, we are his murderer and therefore also Jesus’ murderer. This is spiritual murder and before God it is the same as physical murder. Zechariah said, God will, through the Holy Spirit of grace and supplication, cause us to look up to Him whom we have pierced and we will grieve and mourn bitterly because of what we have done to Him, every nation, tribe, man and women by themselves (Zec.12:10-14). It is undeniably clear: Every man with every sin martyrs God and Jesus and is the murderer of Jesus Christ. We made and caused His wounds through our sins. We all broke His body and spilled His blood. That is what Jesus showed and demonstrated at the Eucharist. “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed because of many for the remission / forgiveness / deliverance / release (Gr. Aphesis) of sins. (Gr. Huper / alt. peri = because of and as a quotation from Is. 53:5 and in line with all the abovementioned scriptures). Every time we break the bread and pour the wine, we remember, admit, confess and demonstrate how our sins wounded and broke Him and how we shed His blood. If we admit and confess with deep bitterness and remorse what our sins did to Him and if we repent from our sins, He promised by covenant that our sins will be forgiven and He will wash, cleanse, free and deliver us from our sins by His blood. And it is a covenant and testament in His blood – if we continue in sin (or uses the bread and wine unworthily), we are guilty of His body and blood. If we confess and repent from our sins He will forgive, cleanse and deliver us with His blood 1John1:7-9. And God does that. That is why they praised Him and sang in Rev. 1: “Unto Him that loved us, and washed / freed / cleansed / delivered us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” That is how the devil is overcome – by the blood of the Lamb! Thanks and glory to God. Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world – ever since Adam and Eve He is slain Rev. 13:8. God demonstrated it before the eyes of Adam and Eve when He tore apart and pealed the goats’ skin and dressed their nakedness. And they were reminded of that every time they had to put on new skins again. But He promised that Someone will crush the head of the serpent – obviously in our hearts. All excuses, love and consideration for or lies and deceptions of Satan are crushed and destroyed when we realize the Lamb of God is slain when we sin. The sacrificial lambs in the O.T. and the scapegoat (Azazel) (Lev. 16) signified to the Jews exactly the same truth. The scapegoat bore the sins of the people into the wilderness and there it died a terrible death. Most Jews knew everything about the sacrifice but did not realize what it truly signified and meant and they kept on sinning – and God hated their sacrifices. Those who realized it pointed to what their sins did to God and the Messiah – was in the same way as us forgiven and washed by the blood of the Lamb. The brazen serpent of Moses in the wilderness confirmed this message. Look at Jesus on the cross, admit and confess your guilt of His death and you will be cured of the sicknesses caused by the bites of the serpents. David realized and experienced the same when he was told that the child born from Uriah’s wife will die because of his sins. He stopped eating and was ready to die because of that. Later he said: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest,” Ps. 51. John the Baptist saw and recognized this Lamb of God that bore the sins of the world. That is why he spoke the way he spoke. No sin is excusable or may be overlooked because the Lamb of God bears it. He attacked even kings and said to the religious people: “Do not even think to call yourself a child if God if you do not bear fruit worthy of repentance. If you do not bear good fruit, you will be cast into everlasting fire. He will thoroughly purge his floor.” Graciously, He can even make a stone a child to bear the acceptable fruit. There is therefore much hope for me and all of us. Paul also received this great light when he was told that he was all along persecuting Jesus, the Messiah, through his sins against the believers. He was so overwhelmed with grief and bitterness because of that, that he stopped eating and drinking for three days and he was set to rather die than live with what he has done. He constantly prayed, confessed his great sin and pleaded for mercy and forgiveness – and God heard him and sent Ananias to help him. Everyone who denies that he, because of his sins, is guilty of the blood of all the prophets, from Abel to Zechariah and of Jesus, proves thereby that he is a child of those who killed them. The blood of all the prophets and of Jesus will therefore be required from his hands. But if we acknowledge and confess that we, through our sins, have broken the body and spilled the blood of the prophets and of Jesus and if we repent from all sins, we can be forgiven and cleansed - that our sin may stop. Then at the Eucharist we take the bread and break it and pour the wine and drink it and so remember and signify His death until He comes. So this is the true meaning and origin of the Eucharist. Faan Oosthuizen. • • • • • • • Easter/IshtarWhy is it that the majority of those professing Christ as their savior, forget what he taught concerning traditions of men and ordinances of God. There are but a few days of remembrance ordinated by God through His holy words, but men have always added their touch and slant on these things. It seems that the death and resurrection of the Christ were all in the time frame of Passover which is to a specific date and not some day derived by the full moon's relationship to the Spring equinox, which is definitely a pagan celebration. What gives? • • • • • • • Jerusalem• • • • • • • JESUS CRUCIFIED AND RESURRECTEDJesus speaks to us today: RESURRECTION I lived and walked among you. I showed you of My Father, His compassion, His love and care in everything I did. I showed you all this and brought you out of prison walls of your own making. I touched lives of all who sought Me, bringing you out of the darkness into My glorious light! My Father, knowing the evil in men’s hearts, sent Me to take it all, to suffer on the cross and die for you. I took all your sins, covered with My blood. But death could not hold Me. I rose from the tomb! Yes, truly I am risen! ©Constance Vanides April 7, 2007 www.Godcares.org • • • • • • • NorthI vividly remember reading this article several yrs ago as it finally opened up plausable reasoning behind the eucharist. Simple sacraments, the raising of the mundane to the sacred. Baptism makes bathing scremental. The last supper mekes eating and drinking sacred. I think Jesus sought to remove the priesthood as the intersessors for the people and allow them to access God directly. To seek purity and forgiveness by merely repenting and asking for it. The group meal reminds us of this opprotunity. Thanks, Dr Chilton your article opened up the eucharist for me and allowed me to participate in that simple sacrement once again. • • • • • • • Jesus article"If one denies the phenomenon of predictive prophesy, then the book of Mark must be dated after 70 A.D. because of 13:2, but since our Lord could predict the future, this date is unnecessary. In fact, if Acts must be dated about 61 A.D., and if Luke, the companion volume, preceded it, then Mark must be even earlier, since Luke apparently used Mark in writing his gospel. This points to a date in the 50's for Mark. However, many scholars believe that Mark was not written until after Peter had died; i.e.,after 67 but before 70." Ryrie. • • • • • • • PassoverIf synoptic gospels were not written until after 71AD, why do they not mention the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple? • • • • • • • What Really Happoened at GethsemaneIt has always been a mystery to me how the words of Jesus could possibly have been reported including his prayer for removal of 'the cup', sine there was nobody AWAKE. Most of the events in Jesus' life were not recorded by eyewitnsses - the circumstances of his birth, the period in the desert, where he was alone. The writers of the Gospels were not witnesses to any of the events, this much I have concluded, but they were good writers for their times. • • • • • • • The Eucharist--Exploring Its OriginsNice try, Bruce, but... 1. The Gospels were originally written in Hebrew and the entire New Testament was written before the destruction of the Temple. (Robinson/Carmignac/Tresmontant/Jewish Encyclopedia) 2. Apollos gave us the superior analysis two thousand years ago in his Epistle to the Hebrews. (Jewish Encyclopedia) 3. The Pharisees treated Jesus as an idolater and a blasphemer of an am ha-aretz cult. (Schafer/Jewish Encyclopedia) • • • • • • • response to Bill SilvermanBill, the writing dates of all those gospels have been altered by experts one way or the other for a long time, but it is accepted that Mark is the earliest and John the latest. Linda Sheean • • • • • • • EucharistThe earliest Jewish Christian teaching we have, the Didache, represents the Eucharistic meal as a celebration of the Jewish Berakoth. The praise was given for "the fruit of the vine." I believe that we should go back to Paul for the origin of the Eucharistic phrases (1 Cor. 11:23). It precedes the gospels, and was written by someone well-versed in pagan symbolism. • • • • • • • LAST SUPPERI am 67 years old and have passionately sought the TRUTH of our Faith since before the 1st grade. Bruce Chilton's article is a delight of reason. My family are fundamentalists and would be appalled by his ideas. Will we ever learn to realize that the environment of infant Christianity was rooted in polytheistic superstition and foolery? • • • • • • • gospelsIt is doubtful that any of the gospels or letters were written after 70 AD. The destruction of the Temple by the Romans was such a stupendous, life-altering catastrophe for the Jews that it is inconcievable that the Gospel writers and Paul would have completely failed to mention the fact anywhere in their writings. The author of this piece trys too hard to understand what the Apostles quickly grasped. The broken bread represented Jesus' broken body. The blood according to scripture is the "life" of a person or animal. Jesus was telling his followers that they must become members of the body of Christ by partaking of the flesh and blood, symbolically, in order to recieve the Holy Spirit, which came at the Pentecost. • • • • • • • GethsemeneWell done, and quite timely as we approach the end of Holy Week. There is so much that we do not know about this week and your article is precisely the kind of information that brings things together in a responsible manner. I have long been fascinated with the three days between Palm Sunday and Holy Thursday. Just what happened then? Some have commented that Jesus just took those days off in preparation for all that was to come... • • • • • • • Jesus artcileHow do we know 71 a.d. was the date of Mark's authorship? And how do we know the gospel writers were not Jewish? I thought they were... • • • • • • • |
 Seminar at SeaCaribbean Cruise and Lecture Series EXPLORING BABYLON AND THE BIBLE: CONNECTIONS AND CONTRASTS with SCHOLAR ALAN MILLARD January 24–31, 2010
The perfect opportunity to invest in your most valuable asset: yourself. Follow the Caribbean sun this winter!
FREE Downloadable E-BooksIsrael: An Archaeological Journey
From Babylon to Baghdad: Ancient Iraq and the Modern West
Exploring Jordan: The Other Biblical Land
Island Jewels: Understanding Ancient Cyprus and Crete
The Olympic Games: How They All Began
The Dead Sea Scrolls—What They Really Say
Real or Fake? Forgery Conference Report |
||||||||||
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER |
