Is the centurion at the cross the 'first Christian'?

[MrMacSon]

(I thought you were referring to historical implausibilities of some kind.)

YMMV.

I think there are a lot of double entendres in the NT narratives, particularly in Mark 15.

[Ben C. Smith]

I think there are a lot of double entendres in the NT narratives, particularly in Mark 15.

What are some examples of these double entendres in Mark 15, from your point of view?

[MrMacSon]

What are some examples of these double entendres in Mark 15, from your point of view?

I think most of the verses or passages I listed in my first post on this thread are likely to be, but I'm not sure what they mean.

[Giuseppe]

Marcion resolves the enigma:

the centurion's conversion means that ''the time of the gentiles is came'', after the death of the son of man.
No need of a carnal resurrection for gentile (marcionite) Christians.

The centurion realizes that Jesus is Son of (the good) God and not the Jewish Messiah. By contrast to this, ''Mark'' (interpolator) has added the reference to Jesus calling Elijiah on the cross (in the eyes of who was observing his agony) so to reiterate obsessively the orthodox point that Jesus was predicted by the prophets.

[MrMacSon]

How can the centurion have come to the realisation of Jesus' true identity, when Jesus hasn't even been resurrected?

Either:

1) Mark has just not cared to compose his story to be 'realistic', and he doesn't care at all about this gross anachronism, that this guy suddenly grasps the whole truth about Jesus, without even knowing about the resurrection (which hasn't happened yet)

2) or else, for Mark the resurrection is irrelevant for understanding Jesus.

Option 2 ties to or aligns with the short end of Mark 16. There was only an assertion by [5] 'a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side' that Jesus had risen -

Mark 16:6-8 -

.
6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you'.”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
.

Is there another third solution?

I think there is: The event happened as a 'parable', and it is symbolic of Gentiles coming to faith ... symbolic of God's new covenant with humans at large (in principle, including Gentile Roman executioners¹), which replaces his old covenant with Israel centered around the temple. But if the event is symbolic what about the actual centurion? What does he mean, then, if he's not expressing the Christian faith in Jesus as [a] son of God? Wouldn't the most 'realistic' solution be that he sees Jesus' death with the darkening, and then concludes that Jesus was "a son of God" in the sense a Roman soldier would understand: like the great men of Rome's history? At least that's an explanation that takes into account both the fact that the resurrection hasn't happened yet in the story, and the fact that this centurion does conclude that Jesus "was (a) son of God".

¹ and including soldiers/centurions. As a pacifying trope? To signal an acceptance by a/the warring party/parties?

[MrMacSon]

.
There is commentary that a khi-rho can be a normal abbreviation for hekatonarkhês -ie. centurio.

• Such commentary is often associated with mosaics discovered at Megiddo prison.

The Chi-Rho uses the first two letters - ΧΡ - of the variations of the Greek word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ - Christos, Chrestus, etc.

• Apparently, in pre-Christian times the Chi-Rho symbol was used to mark a particularly valuable or relevant passage in the margin of a page, abbreviating chrēston (good).

Could there be a metaphor/trope based on these points?

[Ulan]

.
There is commentary that a khi-rho can be a normal abbreviation for hekatonarkhês -ie. centurio.

• Such commentary is often associated with mosaics discovered at Megiddo prison.

I was trying to look this up, and allegedly the comment goes back to McLean, B.H. (2002): An introduction to Greek epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman periods from Alexander the Great down to the reign of Constantine (323 B.C. – A.D. 337). I don't have access to this.

[Ben C. Smith]

Either:
1) Mark has just not cared to compose his story to be 'realistic', and he doesn't care at all about this gross anachronism, that this guy suddenly grasps the whole truth about Jesus, without even knowing about the resurrection (which hasn't happened yet)
2) or else, for Mark the resurrection is irrelevant for understanding Jesus.

Bernard has an interesting take on this: http://historical-jesus.info/79.html. For completely different reasons, Crossan also suggested that a more original text once ended with the centurion's confession.

[Ben C. Smith]

What are some examples of these double entendres in Mark 15, from your point of view?

I think most of the verses or passages I listed in my first post on this thread are likely to be, but I'm not sure what they mean.

Okay, thank you.

[John T]

Actually, the first Christian would be the first person who saw/believed Christ had risen from the dead.

According to Mark 16:5-6 that would be the young man dressed in a white robe, (name unknown) sitting in the empty tomb.

Sincerely,

John T