Why do people try to change Christianity?

[wil]

So homosexuality and paedophilia is the result of repressed heterosexuality? Really? You really think that?

And yet you think that giving heterosexuality free rein will cure the problem? Have you put this idea to a homosexual, ever?

God bless,

Thomas

I think as a generalization everything has its upper and lower limits, beyond which we get a derviation from the norm.

While I do believe homosexuality and pedophilia (seperate issues) will occur naturally. If you keep folks (not by personal choice but by will of a 'higher power') from having sex...or if one gets overly into sex....both when given opportunity will be more likely to occur.

 

[Thomas]

I have to disagree with you there.

OK.

In 1st Corinthians, Paul is arguing that the "resurrection" body was not made of gross physical matter, but of some more ethereal stuff; his principle motive is to claim that his own "visionary" experience of the risen Christ was actually the same as what the original disciples saw, so that his authority is the same as theirs.

But then that would mean Paul was promoting a Docetic and dualist view of Christianity that was contrary to both his Jewish heritage and the contemporary Christian message? If what you say is so, why was he not challenged as denying the Gospel he claims to be an authentic apostle of? Why was he accepted by Peter, James and those who had walked with Christ if he is effectively denying the resurrection?

As the evidence suggests John, who is absolutely insistent on the physical resurrection of Christ, settled amid the Christians of Ephesus, founded (probably) by Apollos and then baptised by Paul, then why did he not take the Pauline teaching to task? We know that he adamantly refuted Cerinthus, and the Johannine Epistles refute the idea of a spiritual rebirth that renders the body as inconsequential. If Docetic dualism is refuted, why not Paul?

And Paul would be refuting not only the Gospel, but the Hebrew Scriptures, which sees the physical creation as good, and the creation of man as very good ...

... but Paul will not concede that those who encountered Jesus right after the tomb was found empty had any different, more physical, kind of encounter than he himself or the Pentecost crowd had.

Doesn't matter, as I rather think if he was preaching a second-order 'realisation' then his opponents would have flattened him for daring to suggest he is the equal to those who saw and preached a physical resurrection ... I mean, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on, would he?

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

I feel I was a bit short with my prior reply, and I apologise for that.

Let me pick up on a point or two:

One would have to disprove the points above to show that women’s ritual lamentations of the dead played no part in the Jesus movement.

I think the onus is on this novel view to prove itself, not upon the tradition to disprove it. There's too much traditional evidence, and not enough, it seems to me (and I grant you can't put it all), evidence to support Corey's view.

Critics of the book don't seem that impressed by it — and it's made no waves, as far as I can see.

If Jesus was historically lamented by women, then there was no supernatural resurrection of Jesus.

I am still waiting to see a Christological lament, and I don't think there is one. Nor does the first part necessarily infer the latter.

Again, the first person to see the Risen Christ was a women, and she seemed in no doubt about the physicality of His resurrection, nor did she lament? So does Corey dismiss Mary Magdalene?

However, the gospels do not feature women doing the one thing they are expected to do: lament the dead.

Yes they do. The women went to the tomb to dress the body — but the tomb was empty — from that moment on, nothing can be described as 'as expected', something supernatural had happened.

The earliest creed in Christianity (1 Corinthians 15: 3-5) says that Jesus “was buried” and then “raised on the third day”. “Raised on the third day” hints at “the association of women with the death and burial of Jesus,” because there was a “commonly known Hellenistic custom of tomb visitation, often three days after death”

But these were Jews. And yes, they went to visit the tomb the day after the Sabbath. And the tomb was empty.

In fact "funerary rites were regularly held on the third day after death, the ninth day after death, and the thirtieth day after death, and then annually throughout the ancient Mediterranean world.

But not in this case. Were such so, then there is every likelihood that the tomb would have become a place of pilgrimage, and would be known. The fact that the final burial place of Jesus is unknown suggests that it dropped out of consciousness, it became irrelevant, because He was no longer there.

The emphasis on these rites was on communing with and propitiating the spirit of the deceased, who was thought to be present in the memorial meals and whose presence was invoked by the lament of women"

Not in Christianity it wasn't. The emphasis of the Rite is life in the Risen Christ. Judaism does not have such a cult of the dead — not a cult of Abraham or Moses, or anyone else. It is God who is present at the meal, and in Christianity it is Christ.

(2). One may say "raised on the third day” is a reference to Hos 6:2 . . . but it’s not used as a proof text in the New Testament, or that of any early Christians (as far as I know); thus women's ritual laments is a more preferable explanation.

Not at all. Christ's own words are the proof text. 'Destroy this temple and I will resurrect it' (Matthew, Mark and John).

Sorry, but it just doesn't hold. There's no evidence to support the thesis, just insinuation from non-Christian sources.

The premise fails, as does Bultmann's, on a flawed premise:
A is a myth;
B reads like A;
Therefore B is a myth.

It's not a proof, it's an assumption.

Finally:

There are two fundamental facts of faith:
1: Jesus Christ is God,
2: Jesus rose physically from the dead.

The first we derive (chronologically) first from a woman, His mother, and the second we derive (chronologically) first from another woman, Mary Magdalene.

In this sense then, the assertion of two supernatural events, the birth and the resurrection, came from women, and the first could only come from a woman ... so if the (wanton or otherwise) misinterpretation of the lament of these 'women' resulted in a myth of resurrection, then the testimonies of both Mary Immaculata and Mary Magdalene should be removed from Scripture.

Another supernatural event is the Miracle at Cana — and again a woman plays a significant role — so again Our Lady would have to be removed.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[bob x]

I think this is rather a retro-fit view, as 'feminism' is a relatively modern concept.

Here I must agree with you. I remember reading a quote from C. S. Lewis when he was arguing with someone who thought the "original" Christianity was [some kind of New-Agey mystical whatever] and said, "I know perfectly well that the ancients did not think that way, because I am old enough to remember that people did not even think that way before 1914." It is easy to back-project modernist attitudes onto times when no-one would have conceptualized things anything like what we do.

That's probably the Gospel of Philip again. A 3rd century composition of gnostic origin, with a marked anti-orthodox bias, as one would expect. It makes sensationalist television, but few scholars treat it as anything more than a side-show.

Few scholars of the type you allow to penetrate your consciousness, perhaps. "3rd century" is way too late for most of the material in it; I think it refreshing
that it does not pretend, as most of the pseudepigraphic "gospels" would, to be verbatim from Philip, but frequently says things like "The apostles who came before us have said..." acknowledging that it is a later composition, in a tradition going back to Philip-- and doubtless much mutated along the way, but this is not to say that its information should be completely disregarded.

That some homosexuals found a cover in the priesthood is a matter of record, and I am sure there are many homosexual priests who fulfil their office admirably, as there are many heterosexual — one's sexual orientation is not the issue, celibacy is — and celibacy is no easier or harder for man of either disposition, so celibacy is not the issue, concupiscence is, be it hetero or homo.

Well, the whole assumption is that sexuality itself is a bad thing, and repressing it a good thing. Some people may be "called" to celibacy, just are not wired with a very high sexual drive; but most, whether homo or hetero, are not, and it is unhealthy to force them to go against their natures. The assumption that celibates somehow have the moral high ground is one of the more disturbing facets of Catholic/Orthodox Christianity; I am not sure where it even came from (even Paul only commends celibacy as a practical measure because he thought the tribulations of the end time were coming within a human life-span, so that having children would be a burden).

Did it? Another myth, I think. Celtic Christianity is essentially Eastern (Greek), having been established before the schism took effect. And the East does not allow priests to marry.

Celtic Christianity was very alien to the Catholic/Orthodox structure: they did not ordain "priests" but had monastic institutions, and were governed by abbots rather than bishops. Aside from monasteries and nunneries they had many "double houses" where couples lived; celibacy was common among the monks and nuns, but not universal, and the married were not discriminated against (nor were females subordinated to males to the extent found in other branches. Many of the monastic establishments date back to pre-Christian times, and may have been founded under the influence of Buddhism: Clement of Alexandria recorded Buddhist preachers in Alexandria in his day, and says they had particular success in the British Isles; not only monasteries, but also such practices as "breathing" meditation (dercad in Irish) and counting mantric prayers on rosary beads, and numbered lists of things like "deadly sins" and "cardinal virtues" etc., are of Buddhist origin-- this complex of practices spread in Christianity from the East and from Ireland, although Buddhist doctrine and mythos vanished without much of a trace.

 

[bob x]

But then that would mean Paul was promoting a Docetic and dualist view of Christianity that was contrary to both his Jewish heritage and the contemporary Christian message?

Yep.

Why was he accepted by Peter, James and those who had walked with Christ if he is effectively denying the resurrection?

Peter, James, and John viewed him with a high degree of suspicion. The one passage suggesting otherwise, in Galatians, is textually suspicious: it uses the form Petros where the authentic Paul always uses Kephas; it makes a muddle of the chronology; and it is in a book which is otherwise dedicated to showing how much Paul despises the claims to authority of Peter, James, John, etc. ("I did not receive my teachings from any man"; "Never mind what those who claim to be somebody say"; "I withstood Kephas to his face, because he was in the wrong").

Peter went to Rome sometime after Paul did, in time to be martyred during the "Great Fire" incident; I accept this tradition (which goes back to 1st Clement, considered by just about every scholar, Christian or otherwise, to be genuinely ~90 AD unlike other "Clementine" literature) but would ask a question that I have never seen anyone from the Catholic tradition address: WHY did he go to Rome? The impression I get is that Peter was there to check up on Paul and see what he was up to: the "We" Document (second half of Acts; the part where Luke the physician is in 1st person) looks like a report (probably prepared in Aramaic, translated to Greek by the compiler of the first draft of "the gospel of Luke" who would also be the author of the "bridge" material in the first half of Acts) made to Peter upon his arrival (hence, breaking off just before Peter's coming). The "Petrine" and "Pauline" Christians had no quarrels with each other after their shared suffering under Nero (although it is noteworthy that Clement describes himself as a successor to Paul, rather than as a successor to Peter).

The "Ebionite" community tracing itself back to James, presided over by family members of James and Jesus, were strongly at odds with the followers of Paul, although Epiphanius reports a late split between "Ebionites" who rejected Paul's epistles and "Nazoreans" who accepted them (the two terms had previously been synonyms).

As the evidence suggests John, who is absolutely insistent on the physical resurrection of Christ, settled amid the Christians of Ephesus, founded (probably) by Apollos and then baptised by Paul, then why did he not take the Pauline teaching to task?

He congratulates Ephesus for "rejecting those who claim to be apostles, and are no such thing." That Ephesus and the other churches in Asia Minor, afterwards led by those tracing their authority to John (the so-called "Johannine community"), did turn against Paul is acknowledged by Paul himself ("All of Asia has turned against me"). The specific issue on which Paul was most strongly repudiated was about whether it was proper to eat meat from the public markets: there were no "secular" butchers at the time; all "butchers" were priests, who killed the animal with dedicatory prayers to some deity or other ("kosher" meat killed by a Jewish priest would not have been a problem, but was often unavailable). Paul taught that this did not matter, and the specific issue on which he stood against Kephas was whether to eat at the same table with people who ate "unclean" food; the Council recorded in Acts decided that, indeed, meat that had been offered to pagan gods was one of the things Christians must avoid, and in the Johannine community this was the most noticeable trait of a Christian, as Pliny records in his letter to Trajan (after his crackdown on Christians, "meat is now sold readily, where before it could scarcely find a buyer"). Tensions between "Paulicians" and "Johannines" remained high in the 2nd century, when Marcion (the Marcionites called themselves "Paulicians" down to the 19th century) published a canon including an early text of "Luke" and most of the "Pauline" epistles-- but rejecting everything attributed to "John".

And Paul would be refuting not only the Gospel, but the Hebrew Scriptures, which sees the physical creation as good, and the creation of man as very good ...

Yep.

I mean, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on, would he?

You wouldn't think so, but you can't knock success!

 

[Thomas]

Yep.

Grrr!

You wouldn't think so, but you can't knock success!

From the impression I have of Paul, I know I wouldn't take him on

As ever, you've given me a lot to think about, Bobx. Too much too well reasoned and presented to respond to off the cuff ... so I won't do you a disservice by flying to the defence of orthodoxy, but please don't assume I've ignored it.

God bless (if you'll allow),

Thomas

 

[c0de]

While I do believe homosexuality and pedophilia (seperate issues) will occur naturally. If you keep folks (not by personal choice but by will of a 'higher power') from having sex...or if one gets overly into sex....both when given opportunity will be more likely to occur.

By that argument, the majority of sex offenders and homosexuals would have to be ultra religious, which clearly isn't the case.

 

[Ahanu]

Hold up. I need to repost this.

 

[Ahanu]

Well, Corey would have to demonstrate that Psalm 22 was a lament, and not, as it so evidently is, a profound theological and Liturgical treatise. What Corey means by 'early' (early Christian or early Jewish?) I have no idea, but if she means early Christian, then she's talking rubbish . . .

I have to modify my theory.


Let’s note what Psalm 22 is used for and not used for in Mark’s passion narrative.

Within Mark’s passion narrative Psalm 22 does not prove Jesus is the Davidic messiah (Standhartinger 568).


Within Mark’s passion narrative Psalm 22 is not “used as a scriptural attestation to what happened, as it is in John 19: 24, ‘So they said to one another, Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it. This was to fulfill what the scripture says, “They divided my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots” (568).


Using Psalm 22 to prove Jesus as Davidic messiah, or as a “scriptural attestation to what happened,” “first appears” within Justin Martyr’s writings. Here’s the note from the scholar in regards to Justin Martyr:

“Justin is the first to quote a translation of Ps 22:17 (LXX 21:17) in relation to the passion narrative: ὤρυξαν χεῖρά μου καὶ πόδας (“they pierced my hands and my feet”). According to Justin, this verse clearly proves that the whole psalm refers to Christ and no other king, since “when they crucified him, they pierced his hands and feet by thrusting nails through them” (Dial. 107.3). For the problem of translating v. 17, see Naomi Koltun-Fromm, “Psalm 22’s Christologi-applical Interpretative Tradition in Light of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic,” JECS 6 (1998): 37–57. Moreover, according to Justin (Dial. 98–106), the whole psalm (22:2–24) shows “how he [Christ] showed himself obedient before the Father, how he surrendered everything to the Father, and how, through his prayer to the Father, he was rescued from death; at the same time the psalm reveals who were those who conspired against him and that he [Christ] was truly a person to be clung to in suffering” (98.1). In a verse-by-verse exegesis, Justin thus interprets the whole psalm “in terms of Christ” (99.1). On this, see Judith M. Lieu, “Justin Martyr and the Transformation of Psalm 22,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (ed. Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu; JSJSup 111; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 195–211. It is striking that as regards the manner of death, Dial. 90–91 and 105 do not, as does Dial. 107.3-4 (1 Apol. 35), cite Ps 21:17 LXX but Ps 21:22 LXX: “Save me from the lion’s mouth; and regard my lowliness from the horns of the unicorns.” Here “the horns of the unicorns” represent the cross (Dial. 105.2; cf. Tertullian, Marc. 3.19.5–6).”
​

I quoted all that in order to conclude that these two uses of Psalm 22 were not part of the “profound theological” treatise the writer of Mark had in mind. I assumed these could be two ideas you had in mind. Emphasis in Mark’s passion narrative is strictly on “lamentation and accusation from the Psalm” (569). Since the Psalm is reflected on in reverse order, there’s “no indication of the thanksgiving song” at the end (569). Instead, the crucifixion ends with the Aramaic words “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” See? It is a strict emphasis on lamentation.


Here Mark features code-switching to Aramaic. One can presume that the author code-switches to Aramaic arbitrarily; however, the scholar Emanuel Feldman offers me a very, very tempting connection with lamentations sung by women, for he writes:

“Among the laments by professional orators, certain specific characteristics can be noted. First, the laments sung by the professional women are uniformly in Aramaic . . . This is perhaps because Hebrew was the language of the scholars, while the lingua franca of the women was the Aramaic of daily life” (Feldman 70-71).
​

Unfortunately, I cannot offer any proof for Psalm 22 as playing a role in women’s mourning rituals, because evidence during this era is “insufficient” to draw any conclusions (570). Gah!


If women did historically lament Jesus' dead body, it helps explain why Psalm 22 is used in Mark's passion narrative. It could have been women's ritual laments that helped shaped this biography. Standhartinger also conclude that "there could in fact be lament traditions behind this structure and its application" (569). So I guess all I can say now is that women's ritual laments can most definitely be read into Mark's passion narrative.

Then why do we not have other examples of where the dead are physically resurrected? Why do not the Jewish laments have physical resurrection? Why would the women composing the lament turn their Jewish heritage on its head? (When you're dead, you're dead).

It could have been known by these women that Jesus was indeed dead, but over the years people have visions of Jesus and forget about the women's performance of a lament. In the ancient world masses of people can have the same vision; N.T. Wrong gives an example:

“In ca. 648 BC, Ashurbanipal’s vision of the Goddess Ishtar (Astartes) was said to be shared by his whole army. Ashurbanipal explains that when his army reached the river Idide, his soldiers were too afraid to cross it because of its strong current. “But the Goddess Ishtar who dwells in Arbela let my army have a dream in the middle of the night.” In this mass dream or vision Ishtar was heard to say, “I shall go in front of Ashurbanipal, the king whom I have myself made.” And so the army, Ashurbanipal added, “put their trust in this dream and crossed the river Idide safely.” (Luckenbill, Ancient records of Assyria and Babylonia, 1968: section 807). Ashurbanipal’s own record of his vision of Ishtar has been extended to become a vision experienced by an entire army on the march!”
The Resurrection of Jesus as Mass Hallucination N.T.WRONG
​

It’s plausible.

Then, stories of an empty tomb are created. Corley gives examples of Hercules leaving an empty pyre, “Cleomedes leaving behind an empty chair, Aristeas an empty house,” and, finally, of Chaereas finding an empty tomb, for I read:

“At the crack of dawn Chaereas turned up at the tomb, ostensibly to offer wreaths and litbations, but in fact with the intention of doing away with himself . . . When he reached the tomb, he found that the stones had been moved and the entrance was open. He was astonished at the sight and overcome with fearful perplexity at what had happened. Rumor—a swift messenger—told the Syracusans this amazing news. They all quickly crowded round the tomb, but no one dared go inside until Hermocrates gave an order to do so . . . It seemed incredible that even the corpse was not lying there. Then Chaereas himself determined to go in, in his desire to see Callirhoe again even dead; but though he hunted through the tomb, he could find nothing” (Corley 116).
​

Therefore, the empty tomb is a common fictional device. It’s often used when the gravesite of the deceased is unknown. There’s little evidence Christians had any interest in where the Jesus' tomb was until “post-Constantinian times,” because they probably just didn't know where it was (118). It was common for special prophets to have tomb monuments, which the first century Christians could have constructed for Jesus, but they did not. The likelihood of a tomb monument dedicated to Jesus’ “empty tomb” would have increased if it was literally true. It’s more likely Jesus was buried in a mass grave, especially considering the popularity and controversial nature of Jesus: public lamentations can be a form of protest. Romans could attempt to squelch this easily by putting Jesus’ body in a mass grave.


Afterwards, some people concluded there was a bodily resurrection of Jesus.


Sources:


Corley, Kathleen. Maranatha: Women's Funerary Rituals and Christian Origins. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010.


Feldman, Emanuel. “The Rabbinic Lament.” The Jewish Quarterly Review, New
Series, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Jul., 1972), 51-75.


Standhartinger, Angela. “What Women Were Accustomed to Do for the Dead Beloved by Them’ (Gospel of Peter 12.50): Traces of Laments and Mourning Rituals in Early Easter, Passion, and Lord’s Supper Traditions.” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 129, No. 3 (Fall 2010), 559-574.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

Let’s note what Psalm 22 is used for and not used for in Mark’s passion narrative. Within Mark’s passion narrative Psalm 22 does not prove Jesus is the Davidic messiah

I agree, but I would add that nothing in Scripture 'proves' anything in that sense — that's not what Scripture is, or is about — it's a discourse; philosophical, metaphysical, theological — and it is metacosmic, it's of the order of 'first philosophy'. Proofs belong to the natural sciences, which is a lower order of philosophical operation, resting primarily on empirical data.

Below is a paraphrase of John Eaton's commentary on the Psalms ("The Psalms, Continuum, pps 116-122).

Psalm 22 falls into two parts: a lament (vv1-21) and praise (vv22-31).

Adhering to the interpretation of Gunkel, most of the lamenting psalms were connected with the distress of a private individual. Whilst some scholars (Kraus, Cragie) shifted the idea to a formula of distress and relief which could be recited for any afflicted pilgrim, others argue that later emendations, when an individual's prayer developed into a hope for the end of the age. Girard however, is emphatic that the whole Psalm was constructed as a single piece.

Eaton, favouring earlier scholarship, holds that the psalmist was a representative character, the mouthpiece of the nation, and that the words belong in the mouth of a 'theocratic king', whom for Israel is The Lord's Annointed. The 'scale' of the psalm infers a royal speaker, as do adjacent psalms, the Davidic kings witness to the suffering of their nation, and their belief of an eventual deliverance.

The medieval Jewish scholar Rashi states that the psalm was composed by David (or those appointed by him) with reference to the Exile; Mowinckel also favours the idea of a nation facing a crisis, in his case the Assyrian invasion in 701.

Eaton further favours a liturgical drama in two scenes, a profound contemplation of the mystery of salvation. It would be enacted at the turning of the year, in which the person of the king acts as the focus for the nation's fears and hopes. "Like all great art – poetry, drama, music — it caught the truth of existence, and like all great sacraments of worship, it was open to the divine grace'.

The peculiar heading may indicate a rite that began in darkness and culminated with joy at daybreak.

("The Psalms, Continuum, pps 116-122).

+++

Within Mark’s passion narrative Psalm 22 is not "used as a scriptural attestation to what happened... "

Well if he puts the Psalm in the mouth of Jesus on the Cross, how can it be anything other than a scriptural attestation? Mark's theme in the Gospel, as all scholars advert, is the Messianic Secret, and Psalm 22 sums up his Christology quite effectively — the king who suffers for his people, and who is eventually delivered ... I rather think Mark is using the Psalm to signal what is happening. Mark deploys it for effect, and the effect is the implication of the Psalm. For Mark, Christ's suffering is the same as the Psalmist's lament, 'all that see me mock me' (v7). He's drawing a parallel; he's pointing to a mystery, both of salvation, as voiced in the Psalm, and of the person suffering on the cross who, for Mark, is the subject of the Psalm. Bearing in mind the theme of Mark's gospel is the Messianic Secret, it's hardly surprising he would allude to such a text.

Using Psalm 22 to prove Jesus as Davidic messiah, or as a “scriptural attestation to what happened,” “first appears” within Justin Martyr’s writings.

Again, I rather think Justin is the first to draw attention to it. Origen draws attention to almost every sylable of Scripture. As someone once said, even the pebbles beside the road in the parable of the Good Samaritan have a deeper meaning.

In a verse-by-verse exegesis, Justin thus interprets the whole psalm “in terms of Christ”...

That is the purpose of exegesis.

I quoted all that in order to conclude that these two uses of Psalm 22 were not part of the “profound theological” treatise the writer of Mark had in mind.

I don't see how you can conclude that, without referring to the overall Markan theme of the gospel.

I assumed these could be two ideas you had in mind. Emphasis in Mark’s passion narrative is strictly on “lamentation and accusation from the Psalm”. Since the Psalm is reflected on in reverse order, there’s “no indication of the thanksgiving song” at the end.

What d'you mean reverse order? The Psalm opens with the cry, and these are the words Mark puts on Jesus' lips? Both start at the same place.

Instead, the crucifixion ends with the Aramaic words “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” See? It is a strict emphasis on lamentation.

Yes ... the thanksgiving would then refer to the Resurrection, and it's implicit in the unfolding understanding of the Mystery of the Cross, and do you not see? If Mark's purpose was not such, then why reference the Psalm at all?

Here Mark features code-switching to Aramaic. One can presume that the author code-switches to Aramaic arbitrarily; however, the scholar Emanuel Feldman offers me a very, very tempting connection with lamentations sung by women, for he writes:
“Among the laments by professional orators, certain specific characteristics can be noted. First, the laments sung by the professional women are uniformly in Aramaic . . . This is perhaps because Hebrew was the language of the scholars, while the lingua franca of the women was the Aramaic of daily life” (Feldman 70-71).

OK. I can see that. But could not the profession orators also be men?

Unfortunately, I cannot offer any proof for Psalm 22 as playing a role in women’s mourning rituals, because evidence during this era is “insufficient” to draw any conclusions (570). Gah!

I think the evidence points elsewhere ... the Psalm may have been sung by men, or women, but it is a liturgical and theological masterpiece ... but I don't see how its existence, or its reference by Mark, who like all the evangelists draws on Scriptural sources, offers any evidence of women composing laments about Jesus, or their content and message?

If women did historically lament Jesus' dead body, it helps explain why Psalm 22 is used in Mark's passion narrative. It could have been women's ritual laments that helped shaped this biography. Standhartinger also conclude that "there could in fact be lament traditions behind this structure and its application" (569). So I guess all I can say now is that women's ritual laments can most definitely be read into Mark's passion narrative.

I find that a far stretch. There is a lament tradition — in the Psalms themselves — so the obvious argument to me is that Mark drew on an existing tradition to highlight the theological and revelatory implication of the Cross. Psalm 22 is not a lament in the sense of something composed by friends or followers of the deceased. As I understand it, it is traditionally attributed to David, and the lament is that of a king ... so it might have been composed by professional female lyricists as a piece for liturgical usage ... but you can't say that women of Jesus' time composed Psalm 22 ... all you can say is that in lamenting the Crucifixion, people drew on their own cultural heritage.

I would even go so far as to say that one could argue that the 'women' are lamenting the suffering of a king — that's what the Psalm is about.

It could have been known by these women that Jesus was indeed dead, but over the years people have visions of Jesus and forget about the women's performance of a lament.

Hang on a minute ... Sorry, but Psalm 22 is no evidence of these women who are supposed to have lamented Jesus. The fact that lamentation was a cultural practice I do not dispute, what I see no evidence of is the content of laments regarding Jesus, and the establishment of a tradition which would necessarily have to predate Scripture ... so as things go, the argument rather assumes that because the Jews sung laments, they must have sung laments about Jesus, and these laments would have said nothing about resurrection ... there's no basis to argue that at all. I rather think the absence of evidence is telling ... the theologians were quick to condemn anyone who offered a contrary view of orthodoxy, so there would somewhere be a refutation of this assumed feminine tradition, would there not?

N.T. Wrong gives an example:

You know N.T. Wrong is a spurious source, a satire of the well-known and well-respected theologian N.T. Wright?

“In ca. 648 BC, Ashurbanipal’s vision of the Goddess Ishtar (Astartes) was said to be shared by his whole army...

But this is just the kind of flawed logic I pointed out before.
A is a mass hallucination
B reads like A.
Therefore B is a mass hallucination, too.
It's a non-argument.

And why look so far back? What about The Angel on Mons (1914)

... and, finally, of Chaereas finding an empty tomb, for I read:

Well Chaereas and Callirhoe was written after the crucifixion ... and the plot device is secondary to what the plot is saying — Luke uses the journey motif, a well-known contemporary plot device — in his Gospel.

None of the samples you offer infer resurrection, in the story Callirhoe wasn't dead, but unconscious ... so I think Corey, especially in offering the Chaereas story, shows how little evidence, if any at all, she's building a case on.

All in all it's not really a convincing argument, a lot of smoke and mirrors, but no substance. One can easily assume Corey doesn't believe in the Resurrection, and is now retro-fitting material to support her argument ... there is no actual historical evidence, or reference, to this group of 'women' she assumes, their laments, what they believed ... certainly not a shred of evidence to suppose that such a group did not believe in resurrection.

On the other hand, there are hymns in Scripture — the Hymn of Colossians is one, and that is a complete metaphysic in itself, there are others, so whilst Corey is making unsupported assumptions and spurious insinuations, there is material evidence at hand which suggests songs and hymns that the authors of Scripture knew, from their Jewish heritage (eg Psalm 22), from Gentile sources (eg Acts 17:28) and from unknown Christian source(s), the believing community itself.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Ahanu]

What d'you mean reverse order? The Psalm opens with the cry, and these are the words Mark puts on Jesus' lips? Both start at the same place.

Read V.K. Robbins' "The Reversed Contextualization of Psalm 22 in the Markan Crucifixion: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis," for he writes:

"The Markan approach , which emphasizes the agony and reality of Jesus' death, produces a backward reading of Ps. 22. The reading begins with verse 19, the place in the middle of the psalm where the sufferer refers to the dividing of his garments by the casting of the lots. The reading continues by proceeding backwards to verses 7-8, where the sufferer refers to the wagging of heads and the mocking speech, 'let him save him'. Then the Markan text moves back to verse 6 of the psalm as the narratorial voice says that those crucified with Jesus 'reviled' him, just like the sufferer in the psalm refers to himself as 'reviled' of men. Last of all, the reading proceeds backwards to the first two verses of the psalm. The Markan reading ends with the death cry of Jesus, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'"

"The mockery of Jesus, then, creates the framework for the selection of the scenes from Ps 22, and the broader cultural discourse contributes to the understanding of the mockery. Narratorial emphasis on the death and burial of Jesus works in consort with the broader cultural discourse to create a reverse reading of Ps 22. Only accounts containing the ritual mockery of Jesus as king (Mark, Matthew, GPeter) place the first verse of Ps 22 on Jesus' lips at or near his death. In other words, the presence of the use of scenes from Ps 22 in reverse order occurs only in those accounts that exhibit the kingship ritual from the broader cultural discourse. The Lukan version, which does not have a sustained use of scenes in reverse order from Ps 22, also does not have the initial ritual mockery of Jesus as king of the Jews" (1180).

http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/ReversedPs22Mark15.pdf
​

I'mma need some time to respond to your other questions.

 

[Ahanu]

Mark's theme in the Gospel, as all scholars advert, is the Messianic Secret, and Psalm 22 sums up his Christology quite effectively — the king who suffers for his people, and who is eventually delivered ... I rather think Mark is using the Psalm to signal what is happening. Mark deploys it for effect, and the effect is the implication of the Psalm. For Mark, Christ's suffering is the same as the Psalmist's lament, 'all that see me mock me' (v7). He's drawing a parallel; he's pointing to a mystery, both of salvation, as voiced in the Psalm, and of the person suffering on the cross who, for Mark, is the subject of the Psalm. Bearing in mind the theme of Mark's gospel is the Messianic Secret, it's hardly surprising he would allude to such a text

Perhaps the writer of the Gospel of Mark desires to produce "a cathartic effect like that described by many of those who lament" (Standhartinger 570). Where does God answer the crucified in Mark? One could point to Mark 15: 38: "The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." However, this could equally be viewed as expressing creation lamenting the dead Jesus. One could also point to Mark 15: 39, where we find the centurion saying, "Surely this man was the son of God!" However, this could equally be viewed as expressing the final jeer of a Roman soldier (569).

I'm wondering along with Standhartinger, "Why is there no narrative of the resurrection in this Gospel? To the very end, Jesus remains for Mark 'the crucified' (16:6) (569).

Well if he puts the Psalm in the mouth of Jesus on the Cross, how can it be anything other than a scriptural attestation?

Because, unlike the Gospel of John, Mark doesn't say: "This was to fulfill what the scriptures say" (John 19:24). Mark uses Psalm 22 for other purposes: to allude to lamentation and accusation and center his narrative on suffering (569).

the thanksgiving would then refer to the Resurrection, and it's implicit in the unfolding understanding of the Mystery of the Cross, and do you not see? If Mark's purpose was not such, then why reference the Psalm at all?

V. K. Robbins clearly shows Mark used Psalm 22 in reverse order. Therefore, Mark gives no consideration for the thanksgiving song at the end of Psalm 22. The proof is in the post above!

Source:

Standhartinger, Angela. “What Women Were Accustomed to Do for the Dead Beloved by Them’ (Gospel of Peter 12.50): Traces of Laments and Mourning Rituals in Early Easter, Passion, and Lord’s Supper Traditions.” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 129, No. 3 (Fall 2010), 559-574.

 

[Ahanu]

but I don't see how its existence, or its reference by Mark, who like all the evangelists draws on Scriptural sources, offers any evidence of women composing laments about Jesus, or their content and message?

Rabinnic laments feature quotes from scripture. Here's an example:

"Ye palms, sway your heads
for he who was righteous as a palm [Ps. 92: 'the righteous shall flourish like a palm]
Let us lament by night as by day
for him who meditated by night as by day" (Feldman 58-59).
​

It is natural to assume that women could quote scripture too, not just scribes . . . and so perhaps Mark heard these laments sung by women; thus answering the question . . .

why reference the Psalm at all?

I need to quote Corley to make my strongest case of elements within individual oral performances of laments that are also found in the Gospels:

". . . these songs [of lamentation] contain an important narrative element, including details of the life and death of the deceased that can be compared to certain elements of the passion story that cannot be accounted for on the basis of literary and scriptural models. Laments recording events of a very distant past are less likely to contain valuable historical details than laments recording events within a generation of a death. Laments, as an oral genre inteded to fix memories for a community, fix the event of a death in time and space. They usually contain a reference to the mode of death, whether by murder, execution, failed medical operations, horsing accidents, or death by natural causes. They also often open with a phrase that sets the death in time: 'Early one Monday morning,' 'On a holiday,' 'on Sunday,' 'One Saturday at nine,' 'One night right at midnight.' The time of the year can also be mentioned, such as Eastertide, and so on. This custom of fixing the mode of death and setting it in time is common to laments from many cultures. Besides fixing the death in time, laments also contain many proper names and place-names, often set by the singer's or the dead's walk through a landscape. References to family members are also common. The blame for the death is often assigned to a specific individual or group. Embellishment of facts and romanticizing of the event, however, can begin early, such as the association in Christian cultures of a murder with the time of Jesus' death at Easter. These laments are worked at slowly, over a period of days or even months, before they are performed in public.

The passion narratives in the Gospels all betray a likely beginning in a lament in that they contain similar settings in time, place-names, proper names, and other details found in laments. The mode of death is uniformly crucifixion, the blame for which is given to Pilate or the Jewish authorities (Mark 15:24; John 19:14; Gos. Pet. 2:6), the times of day for Jesus' crucifixion, death, and burial are noted (Mark 15:25, 33-34, 42; John 19;14; Gos. Pet. 5:15), the day is the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15: 42; John 19: 31; Gos. Pet. 2:5), the Aramaic place-name of the site of the crucifixion is fixed (Golgotha, Mark 15: 22; John 19: 17), and the titulus remembered (Mark 15:26; John 19: 1-20; Gos. Pet. 4:11). Lists of family and friends present are supplied (Mark 15: 40-41; John 19: 25). The association of Jesus' death with the Passover and his death with the time of the slaughtering of a lamb in preparation for the Passover feast are similar to common embellishments of death stories found in popular laments. A more general association of Jesus' death with the Passover in an oral lament would better explain the many detailed discrepancies between John and the Synoptics, which vary considerably on the exact relation of the crucifixion to the Passover. The written versions of the passion story found in Mark, John, and the Gospel of Peter thus contain details common to oral laments" (Corley 126-27).
​

Source:

Corley, Kathleen. Maranatha: Women's Funerary Rituals and Christian Origins. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010.

Feldman, Emanuel. “The Rabbinic Lament.” The Jewish Quarterly Review, New
Series, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Jul., 1972), 51-75.

 

[Ahanu]

What do critics of Kathleen Corley have to say about that last quote?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu —

I came across this whilst looking at something else:

" ... the burden of proof, for any historical assertion, always rests upon its author." (Hacket, Historians' Fallacies, Harper: 1970, p 63.).

To argue that there is a lament tradition, simply because there must be, because there is in other cases, is no case at all, especially in the case where resurrection would change everything.

Hacket again:
"... evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms — it is no evidence at all... "

And to paraphrase him:
The existence of an object — (such as a specific Christian lament tradition) is not established by nonexistent evidence, but by affirmative evidence that demonstrates that it did, even if what once existed is now lost.

The Q-source theory, a solution to 'the Synoptic problem' comes from the German Quelle, meaning "source". It is a hypothetical text source for the "common" material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.

This soon took on a life of its own, and some treat it as if it actually existed, whereas, it was always deus ex machina kind of fix to offer a solution to the problem that bugged scholars.

The existence of a such a document would have been mentioned by the Fathers and historians, and would have been recorded somewhere ... the 'Gospel of the Hebrews' we have from Papius, 'a sayings document', does not fit the bill, nor can scholars actually reconstruct what Q might have contained other than the bits that solves their problem.

What the scholars don't account for is oral tradition ... the idea that the material common to Matthew and Luke is from a common oral tradition makes the most sense, but it scuppers the scholar's insistence that everything has to come from a written source. Q never actually existed, other than a 'virtual document'.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu, I've rolled your three posts into 1 response —

"The mockery of Jesus, then, creates the framework for the selection of the scenes from Ps 22, and the broader cultural discourse contributes to the understanding of the mockery ... Only accounts containing the ritual mockery of Jesus as king (Mark, Matthew, Peter) place the first verse of Ps 22 on Jesus' lips at or near his death. In other words, the presence of the use of scenes from Ps 22 in reverse order occurs only in those accounts that exhibit the kingship ritual from the broader cultural discourse.

Thanks for this explanation. But it does rather argue the point that the authors of Scripture were utilising Ps 22 to point to the Messiah-ship of Christ?

Markan theology explains the Cross as "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom lutron for many anti pollōn." According to Barnabas Lindars, this refers to Isaiah's fourth servant song, with lutron referring to the "offering for sin" (Isaiah 53:10) and anti pollōn to the Servant "bearing the sin of many" in Isaiah 52:12. The Greek word anti means "in the place of", which indicates a substitutionary death. Mark speaks of Jesus' death through the metaphors of the departing bridegroom in 2:20, and of the rejected heir in 12:6-8. He views it as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy (9:12, 12:10-11, 14:21 and 14:27).

So the weight of evidence supports a direct Scripture-based reference, rather than introducing a mediate lament narrative.

POST 2

Perhaps the writer of the Gospel of Mark desires to produce "a cathartic effect like that described by many of those who lament"

I rather think the 'cahartic effect' is the atonement for sin in the theme of Markan theology? Even so, this argument itself now seems to imply that the 'laments' are themselves not a source, but a type. If this is the case, it still means that actual laments did not influence Scripture in terms of content, but only as a literary form.

Where does God answer the crucified in Mark?

In the resurrection? But good point. The Gospel ends rather abruptly. Some suggest lost materials ... others that Mark intended a 2-part testimony, like Luke/Acts.

One could point to Mark 15: 38: "The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." However, this could equally be viewed as expressing creation lamenting the dead Jesus.

Not really – the Veil of the Temple had a profound meaning, and its rending points to a cosmic significance of the crucifixion, which again points to the death not just of a man, but the Son of God. The veil of the temple marks the separation between the human and the divine; its rending is a matter of great significance, and would not have been over-looked, as it is today, and again points to the mission of the Crucified Saviour. The audience of the day would not read it as you suggest.

One could also point to Mark 15: 39, where we find the centurion saying, "Surely this man was the son of God!" However, this could equally be viewed as expressing the final jeer of a Roman soldier

Could be ... but it's presented otherwise, as most scholars agree.

I'm wondering along with Standhartinger, "Why is there no narrative of the resurrection in this Gospel? To the very end, Jesus remains for Mark 'the crucified' (16:6).

Well, if Mark is the earliest, then perhaps he was mindful of the disciplina arcani. Bearing in mind that the theme of his gospel is the Messianic Secret, maybe he was preserving the revelation of that secret for oral instruction and the entrance of the initiate into the Mysteries of Christ?

Because, unlike the Gospel of John, Mark doesn't say: "This was to fulfill what the scriptures say" (John 19:24).

But he does cite Scripture elsewhere without the need to underline it ... because it's unlike John in style does not mean it's unlike John in content.

Mark uses Psalm 22 for other purposes: to allude to lamentation and accusation and center his narrative on suffering.

And identify the sufferer as the sufferer of Psalm 22 — both King and servant; both God and man.

Therefore, Mark gives no consideration for the thanksgiving song at the end of Psalm 22. The proof is in the post above!

OK ... but this does nothing to support a 'lament' argument ... in fact it stands against it. If the Christian Church picked up the lament of the Psalms, they would not need to write new ones, and if they did, surely they would have been discussed as elements for inclusion, or otherwise, in the nascent Scriptures? The simple fact that there is no mention whatsoever of any such tradition rather points to the probability that there wasn't one.

POST 3

Rabinnic laments feature quotes from scripture.

OK. But, if Christ rose on the third day as all the evidence we possess implies, then the songs would not be laments as presumed ... nor do we have any actual laments to work from. So the evidence suggests the authors of Scripture worked direct from their Scripture, and not contemporary sources, to make allusions.

I could even propose that if the songs existed, they themselves proclaimed the events sung of fulfil the prophecies contained in the Hebrew scriptures, and that the risen Christ is the Son of God.

It is natural to assume that women could quote scripture too, not just scribes . . . and so perhaps Mark heard these laments sung by women; thus answering the question . . .

And perhaps not ... you can't overthrow a tradition on a 'perhaps' ... any more than you'd accept my orthodoxy on a 'perhaps' ...

Surely the point is:
1: We have no evidence of contemporary Christian laments other than speculation;
2: We have no evidence of a specifically female body providing materials that form the foundation of a Christian theology — whilst we have plenty of evidence pointing at another source;
3: We have no evidence to suggest that even if such a group existed, that they did not profess the Resurrection.

So there might well have been women who sang the death of Christ ... but we have no grounds on which to make any assumptions as to what these laments might have contained.

I need to quote Corley to make my strongest case of elements within individual oral performances of laments that are also found in the Gospels:

OK ...

". . . these songs [of lamentation] contain an important narrative element ...

But what actual songs of lamentation ... does Corey evidence a contemporary Christian lamentation song that made its way into Scripture? What proof does she have that it is a lamentation song? What proof does she have that it came from a group of women? Who were these women, and where did they get their information from?

... including details of the life and death of the deceased that can be compared to certain elements of the passion story that cannot be accounted for on the basis of literary and scriptural models.

Why not? I can think of many models that could equally provide the materials. Luke is structured on a journey motif, and beside laments there are epics, eulogies, biographies, testimonies ... all sorts of literary forms. The lament might be recognisable as a literary form — presumably as a song or poem — but there is a difference between form and content.

The anonymous women who composed the songs would have had to get the details from somewhere – and obviously the dsciples — so why write a gospel from a secondary source, when you can go to the first? Luke, for example, points out he's drawing from various oral traditions from "eyewitnesses and ministers" (Luke 1:2).

Corey's argument is that because laments exist, the Christians must have lamented. There is no actual reason to suppose that.

Laments, as an oral genre inteded to fix memories for a community, fix the event of a death in time and space.

So do all traditions, oral and literary.

Embellishment of facts and romanticizing of the event, however, can begin early, such as the association in Christian cultures of a murder with the time of Jesus' death at Easter. These laments are worked at slowly, over a period of days or even months, before they are performed in public.

Well you would have to prove that the facts were embellished or romanticised.

The passion narratives in the Gospels all betray a likely beginning in a lament in that they contain similar settings in time, place-names, proper names, and other details found in laments.

I'm sorry, but drawing up a list of elements that occur in laments that occur in every other literary form is a specious argument.

Corey's whole argument demonstrates she's trying to explain away orthodoxy in favour of her own agenda, rather than offer a serious material challenge to it. It's a negative theology based totally on speculation and assumptions and flies in the face of what evidence we do hold.

Thomas

 

[wil]

I could even propose that if the songs existed, they themselves proclaimed the events sung of fulfil the prophecies contained in the Hebrew scriptures, and that the risen Christ is the Son of God.

This is one of the lovely ones.

The whole thing that somehow we understand the Hebrew Prophecies better than the Jews...

If Christ fulfilled the prophecies, our buddy BB would be a Christian.

Now in the Majii book I heard of...this troop of Chinese Maji that traversed to see the baby Jesus indicate that Jesus being the connection to G!d spoke to all religions...to all prophets....simply the interpretation was different.

I find that interesting....and convenient that it fits my paradigm. That each is attempting to explain and say the same thing....their perspective and understanding was simply different, just as yours and mine are.

So in my thesis, Moses is enough for Jews to understand their connection to G!d, for Christians we need Jesus, Muslims need Mohamed, and on and on, and Lao Tzu and Krishna....

 

[bob x]

The existence of a such a [Q] document would have been mentioned by the Fathers and historians, and would have been recorded somewhere ... the 'Gospel of the Hebrews' we have from Papius, 'a sayings document', does not fit the bill

Yes it does, quite precisely. Papias does not mention a "gospel of the Hebrews" (that phrase occurs in other sources talking usually about the Ebionites' versions of the gospels) but rather the "gospel of Matthew", which according to him, in his day contained no narrative (he contrasts it in this respect with Mark), only sayings which were originally written in Hebrew but were now circulating in multiple variant Greek translations.

The Q material contains word-play which only makes sense in Hebrew or Aramaic, not in Greek: "cast not your pearls to chazeriym [swine] lest they chazeruwk [rend you]" and "out of these abaniym [stones] I can make baniym [sons] for Abraham". There are other peculiarities which are best explained as copyist and translator glitches as the sayings collection went from Semitic to Greek: Thomas has "consider the lilies, who neither card nor spin" referring to two steps of preparing woolen clothing, where the Synoptics have "neither toil nor spin", the Greek "toil" easily miscopied from the rarer "card" by missing a letter; Thomas has "a wild grape has sprouted in my Father's vineyard", a reference to a passage in Isaiah where the narrator complains against his vineyard, "I planted grapes but only beushiym [rare word of uncertain meaning] sprouted", where the Synoptics have "a phyta [plant] has sprouted" using the most generic Greek word for "plant" in an evident punt, confronted with a difficult word in the Hebrew. Although in other places, the text of Thomas is worse, in these places Thomas preserves the better translation.

What Papias describes, a Semitic underlying text from which multiple translators created Greek texts, fits what we see quite well. By contrast, the "Fulfillments" material in Matthew (citations from the Old Testament following little stories which are said to "fulfil" them) is written by someone who knows only the Septuagint, and apparently knows no Hebrew at all as the passages are often given meanings which the Hebrew cannot possibly support. The "F" author is thus someone very different from the "Q" author, and is probably the same as the redactor who combined the Markan narrative with the Q material to form "Matthew" as we now have it (that is, I see no reason to believe that "F" ever existed as a stand-alone document; its pieces were written to fit in the places where we now find them). The author of "Q" was probably the actual disciple named Matthew/Mathias; the F-redactor is working sometime after Papias wrote ~100, but probably before the bar-Kochba revolt against Hadrian (which pretty much ended any prospect that Jews and Christians might reconcile, something the F-redactor seems to be aiming at).

 

[wil]

I love that this question is asked...that the OP is a protestant... a protest-ant... one of a flavor that decided that Christianity must be changed....

Of course the same is for the Catholic (universal) belief... a group that formed to unify the various Christian beliefs less than 300 years after Jesus...

 

[donnann]

I love that this question is asked...that the OP is a protestant... a protest-ant... one of a flavor that decided that Christianity must be changed....

Of course the same is for the Catholic (universal) belief... a group that formed to unify the various Christian beliefs less than 300 years after Jesus...

The catholic church didn't change Christianity but rather established a ministry based on peter and the role that jesus gave him to establish his church here on earth.