07-08-2012, 08:46 PM
Quote:Or, it could be that it is factual as written, yes?
It's my understanding, based on Ehrman's writing, that the standard scholarly view is that much New Testament material was invented to help impress and win converts. The alleged birth of jesus in bethlehem for example, was made up to make it appear this was in fulfillment of what the prophet micah said--the messiah would be born there.
Quote:BTW, we don't know if it was AD33. Jesus' crucifixion was sometime around that time, since he was born probably in about 7BC, and started his ministry when he was "about 30", and preached for roughly 3 years. Reasonable to think the time might be from 26 to 35 or so.
Of course. Dates I've seen range from 29-33 CE. Pilate's tenure was from 26-36 IIRC.
Quote: Is there other historical evidence to cast doubt on the soldier's using his hasta/lancea to make sure the executed was dead?
Strange that the synoptics don't mention it, even though they mentioned rather trivial things like the drink. From what I've read, John, the only one of the canonical four which mentions the spear thrust, is the least reliable historically.
Quote: On that, it seems clear enough that he would have known what angle to set his spear to pass through a lung into the heart, thus ensuring death, even if the victim were simply unconscious, don't you agree?
But crucifixion is enough to kill somebody, and the point is a slow agonizing death. John wrote in effect that the approaching sunset (sabbath) led to a need for haste, hence the spear to finish him, but Mark indicates the crucifixion began earlier than the time john gives--noon.
