Rending of the veil

[Giuseppe]

Which is the difference between this implication :

1) crucifixion ---> rending of the veil ---> death of Jesus

and this:

2) crucifixion ---> death of Jesus ---> rending of the veil

???


In case 1, the emphasis is on the injustice of crucifixion per se.

In case 2, the emphasis is on the cruelty of the killers (i.e. on the innocence of the victim).

The case 1 is more expected in a marcionite view, because the Demiurg ceases to be ''the Just'' par-excellence by crucifying the totally Innocent, and therefore the failure of Demiurg is reflected with the rending of the veil (the distruction of Jerusalem): committing the first time without any justification an injust act, the ''Just'' god falls in contradiction with himself and therefore he has no more the right to claim power of Judge on his creatures.


The case 2 is more expected in a proto-catholic view. YHWH remains always Just but are the Jews not more just, therefore it's required an act of justice by YHWH: the destruction of Temple in order to punish the sinner Jews.

[rakovsky]

The split goes also the same direction.

ἀπ’ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω
from top to bottom

David Ulansey pointed out several parallels between the baptism and the death: http://www.mysterium.com/veil.html. Consider the following connections:

1. At both events something descends; the holy spirit descends as a dove at the baptism of Jesus, and the veil rips in two from top to bottom at his death.
2. At both events the spirit is moving; at the baptism the spirit enters Jesus, and at his death the spirit exits him (the word for expire or exhale in Mark 15.37, εξεπνευσεν, literally means spirit out).
3. At both events somebody claims that Jesus is a son of God (υιος θεου); at his baptism it is a voice from heaven, at his death a nearby centurion.
4. At both events the eschatological figure of Elijah is symbolically present; at the baptism of Jesus it is in the person of John the baptist (whom Jesus himself affirms as Elijah in Mark 9.9-13), while at his death the bystanders mistake his forlorn cry for a call to Elijah.
5. At both events something tears; at the baptism of Jesus it is heaven, and at his death it is the veil.

Ben.

Good point.

The genealogies of Jesus (spiritual in the case of those by Joseph) can mirror the spiritual descendants of Jesus who are his followers.

The star in the heaven coming to Bethlehem in the night at the Nativity could mirror the Ascension to heaven near Bethany, as Jesus is considered the "morning star."

The Birth of Jesus also parallels the burial, both being in caves and presided over by a Joseph (of Nazareth in one, of Arimathea in the other), and in a context of persecution by Herod. Mary gave birth to Jesus and a Mary (Magdalene, IIRC) anoints his body and sees him. The escape to Egypt of the Holy Family could mirror the sending out of the apostles escaping persecution.

The incarnation therefore is a mirror of the resurrection.

Water is seen as a reference to death poetically sometimes (eg. the story of Jonah) and so I see how the baptism can mirror the crucifixion.

The Temptation in the desert by Satan could resemble Temptation in Gethsemane when Jesus tells Peter "Get Behind Me".

The bringing up of Jesus to the mountain in the desert by Satan could mirror the Transfiguration. This is because in the canonical gospels the Spirit leads Jesus to the wilderness initially, and in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the mountain where Jesus was led by the Spirit was Tabor, which in turn is historically associated with the Transfiguration. Another possible parallel with the Transfiguration is Jesus at the Mount to give his "Sermon on the Mount" about commandments, which recalls Moses coming down the mount to give the Ten Commandments. This is because at the Transfiguration, Jesus is flanked by Moses and Elijah, who flanked the Torah in one case of synagogue art I heard of.

The feeding of the 5000 with the multiplied loaves and fishes is a parallel to the Last Supper and Communion meal, based on the connection made in John 6. In the Eucharist, Jesus' body is multiplied in thousands of pieces of bread across Christian communities.

[rakovsky]

Ben,

Check this page out about the chiastic structure of Mark.
It has a simple outline lining up all the major events:
http://www.bible.literarystructure.info ... k_e_1.html

It's neat.

38 A man who not taste death(9:1)
39 The transfiguration(9:2-13)
40 The healing of a boy with a spirit(9:14-29)

41 Jesus again foretells his death and resurrection(9:30-32)

42 Who is the greatest?(9:33-50)
43 Teaching about divorce(10:1-12)
44 Jesus blesses little children(10:13-16)

[Kris]

I am resurrecting this older post just to add some new information. Rabbi Singer wrote about Yoma 39-- and how Christians misinterpreted this information-- as we debated on this thread earlier. He explains what the tractate means and even goes into detail on the Sanhedrin, another issue we discussed. What do you think?

https://outreachjudaism.org/yomkippur/

[Kris]

Here is another website that discusses the issue from a jewish perspective:

www.judaismsanswer.com/Yoma39.htm

[Kris]

I was going back over this post as someone had recently mentioned Yoma 39b to me-- and I remembered all of the good info in this post. In the previous entries,I shared a couple Jewish viewpoints on Yoma 39b as I really liked what they had to say. I am posting a counter-argument from a Jews for Jesus site and was hoping to hear what everyone's thoughts are contra to the original Rabbi's viewpoints. Are they investing too much in the 40 year philosophy?

[Kris]

http://www.hebrewroot.com/Articles/Yoma39b.htm

[DCHindley]

I was going back over this post as someone had recently mentioned Yoma 39b to me-- and I remembered all of the good info in this post. In the previous entries,I shared a couple Jewish viewpoints on Yoma 39b as I really liked what they had to say. I am posting a counter-argument from a Jews for Jesus site and was hoping to hear what everyone's thoughts are contra to the original Rabbi's viewpoints. Are they investing too much in the 40 year philosophy?

http://www.hebrewroot.com/Articles/Yoma39b.htm

Well, I'd want to separate what the evidence indicates, interpreted in context, from what modern Christian or Jewish or even Islamic apologists make of it. That site seems to be more concerned with the latter use than the former.

The loss of the temple was a BIG DEAL. The discontinuation of animal sacrifices was a distinct break with the norms of Judean culture at that time (1st century CE) & place (Judaea & Samaria). The temple also served as a symbol of the grandeur and nobility of the ancestral practices of the Judean national culture that Judeans of the diaspora could boast about to their gentile neighbors, often their patrons, clients and even friends.

For their part, the Romans wanted to equate the Judean national god with their national God Jupiter, or one of the Greek gods that corresponded to Jupiter like Zeus. Many gentiles actually liked certain aspects of the Judean national god, often interpreted in light of their own worship of gods like the god Most High of Asia Minor.

For the rabbis of Judea/Galilee after 70 CE, a lot of rationalizations were being formulated in the evolution of Judean self image. What kind of people were they? Does the Judean God, the one and only god, really need that temple? Could they continue to worship their ancestral God without the sacrifices, like the Judeans were said to have done while captives in the Babylonian empire?

For a good while many Judeans held out hope that the Romans would allow the temple to be reconstructed, maybe even under a Judean client king, e.g., the Mishna, and for a good while this was a distinct possibility. Yet by the early 2nd century that hope pretty much evaporated, partly due to the Judean revolt of Egypt & Cyprus, and the 2nd Judean revolt of the 130s didn't help. Julian's later interest in reviving the Judean temple along the old lines, as part of his promotion of religiosity of all kinds among his subjects, was ultimately unsuccessful, possibly cut short by his death.

So, I am not surprised that rabbis might have acknowledged that their God might be punishing his chosen people, much like he was conceived to have done to the Israelites through the Assyrians or the Judeans through the Babylonians. The Judeans were redeemed that time under the Persians, and if it could have happened once it could happen again, so hope springs eternal.

DCH

[Secret Alias]

The loss of the temple was a BIG DEAL. The discontinuation of animal sacrifices was a distinct break with the norms of Judean culture at that time (1st century CE) & place (Judaea & Samaria). The temple also served as a symbol of the grandeur and nobility of the ancestral practices of the Judean national culture that Judeans of the diaspora could boast about to their gentile neighbors, often their patrons, clients and even friends.

But let's not ignore the fact that CONSERVATIVES would rightly point that the idea of a permanent immobile structure was completely foreign to the Pentateuch as was the location of that permanent building at a site other than Gerizim. Jews might have liked or loved the permanent structure in Jerusalem but this was clearly a man-made inspiration. Tradition was against the Jerusalem temple. I have a hard time wrapping my head around who these 'Jerusalem temple lovers' were. They were Judaean nationalists plain and simple. Pure religious folks (= Sadducees) would have found this innovation disturbing. Might even have welcomed the end of it.

[Kris]

I was reading on a Christian Forum on the topic of the rending of the veil and what sorts of proofs there were of it. One person's answer really confused me, and I tried to look up his information to see if it was valid, but couldn't find anything. He said:

Basically, the curtain that was torn was not the curtain between the holy of holies and the holy place... it was the curtain on the outer doors of the temple. How were the people on the hill able to see this curtain being torn if it was the curtain to the holy place?!?! As well, there is a prophecy in Isaiah where one asked, "If a man were to lose his son he would rend his clothes. But what would G-d do if he lost his son? He would rend the curtain on the gates of the temple." (his paraphase)

1. Was there some sort of prophecy in Isiaiah regarding god rending the temple curtain due to the loss of his son? I couldn't find it.
2. If there is this prophecy, why isn't is mentioned anytime the veil is discussed?
3. Is there some other text that this guy is getting mixed up with Isaiah?
4. Has ANYONE heard of this so called prophecy?

Just curious. The forum was rather old. I did try to contact the gentleman who wrote this, but he hasn't gotten back to me.