"About Jesus' Clothes..."

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: "About Jesus' Clothes..."

Post by schillingklaus »

Casting lots on clothes is a reference to scripture and does in no way reflect on Roman practice.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: "About Jesus' Clothes..."

Post by Charles Wilson »

1. FWIW, Mlinssen and I have come to a bit of an understanding. I believe I understand his Posts more. I welcome his input.

2. schillingklaus --

There are a number of views on the meaning here. Perhaps the Original Intent was to reference "Scripture", in whatever manner that appears.

I believe, however, that there are other alternatives and several of those other views are on display here.

The point of the Original Post was that, in looking at John, there are reflections of Tacitus, Histories, Book 4. In order to accept these views, you must see "The Roman Thesis" - that the Romans (Flavians, in particular) took what was at hand after the Destruction of Jerusalem and Judea and rewrote the Stories they found into the stories of a savior-god, loyal to Rome.

You don't have to believe the end result. Many on this Site understand the Thesis but do not accept the Thesis. That's OK.
"Casting lots..." is not a "Roman Practice". The use of this device is Literary, hence the assertion that, in this case, the description in John ties to Tacitus.

Another example might be found in the last years of "Paul". I assert that the character "Paul" is based on the historical figure "Mucianus", Procurator of Syria. Mucianus was involved in a "Feud" with Vespasian, until he, at the urging of Titus, threw in with Vespasian ("The Vision on the Road to Damascus") to eliminate Vitellius and install Vespasian as Emperor.

Acts 28: 16, 30 - 31 (RSV):

[16] And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier that guarded him.
***
[30] And he lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him,
[31] preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.

Mucianus gives Imperial Power to Vespasian and disappears from History thereafter. He is listed as Suffect-Consul through around 75 and then *Poof*, he disappears from the History.

It is hardly worth the effort to deny the assertion of a Tie-In. Yet, it is consistent with the data.
The LITERARY DEVICE of the Clothes is not reflective of a Roman Practice, as such. It is reflective of Mucianus addressing the Legions:

Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

"They [The German Soldiers] invoked now Mucianus, now the absent Emperor, and, as a last resource, heaven and the Gods, till Mucianus came forward, and calling them "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor," stopped the groundless panic..."

It *IS* Literary Genius, using a Military Garment to cover the disparate troops, in an entirely Military manner, to state that the Civil War is over and that the Legions, not just the 7 Legions Loyal to Vespasian but ALL the Troops, are "...bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor..."

To me, this is what needs to be unpacked, the Literary Stories of the Judaic Culture and the Roman Rewrite. This job is not finished.

CW
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: "About Jesus' Clothes..."

Post by Charles Wilson »

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Matthew 5: 20 (Moffatt):

[20] For I tell you, unless your goodness excels that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never get into the Realm of heaven.

Mark 9: 42 (RSV):

[42] "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
***
Frequently, it appears that NT Passages are constructed from small segments of Text which get expanded and Transvalued. I have the Luke Passage as coming from the Document (from Nicholas of Damascus?) that made it into Josephus, War..., 2, 1, 3 and here Antiquities..., 17, 9, 3:

"And as Archelaus was afraid lest some terrible thing should spring up by means of these men's madness, he sent a regiment of armed men, and with them a captain of a thousand, to suppress the violent efforts of the seditious before the whole multitude should be infected with the like madness; and gave them this charge, that if they found any much more openly seditious than others, and more busy in tumultuous practices, they should bring them to him. But those that were seditious on account of those teachers of the law, irritated the people by the noise and clamors they used to encourage the people in their designs; so they made an assault upon the soldiers, and came up to them, and stoned the greatest part of them, although some of them ran away wounded, and their captain among them..."

The Matthean Passage provides the smallest glimpse of a possible Link to that Ur-Text that not everyone believes existed. Scribes and Pharisees were men and "of this world". They are preventing other men reaching "The Realm of Heaven". One may infer that the "Realm of Heaven" was a real, physical place, a place where Priests congregated in anticipation of performing their Holy Tasks.

Mark is reporting Historical Fact here.

Image

Herod did drop great millstones into the sea, in building the Safe Harbor at Caesarea. This again points to an "Ur-Text", if you would believe it.
***
John 19: 23 (RSV):

[23] When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom


This Post is looking at NT Constructions. FWIW, I am building on the idea that "John-Mark" was a Document or Documents collected from the debris of the Destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. You need not accept this idea but it does provide a "Container" for understanding how the Texts might have been rewritten and Transvalued into what we have today.

*Important* Recently, I have stumbled onto the ideas that, with regard to John, Teeple is almost very completely correct: A Group of Authors contributed identifiable Sections that were finalized by a "Redactor" who did not care if one Section used "Arthrous" Names or "Anarthrous" Names. The Sections become identifiable from this Base and the inconsistencies in John that arise from this have not been "Smoothed Over".

Mark probably fell to the same Techniques but the final Redactor wrote a "Smoother Version", based on Chiastic Structures. This allowed Interpolations to be seen since these Interpolations violated Structure Rules. This would imply that additions by other Authors would have had to have been made by Authors before Chiastic Structures were imposed. Such an Insertion would appear to be the "Empty Tomb" Motif, a story found across all four Gospels.

What does Teeple state concerning the clothes?

Before verse 23, we find the Proclamation of "Jesus" as "King of the Jews". then:

[23] When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom

After this comes the "'Jesus' Mother" Section. What are we to make of this?

Verse 12 of Chapter 19 begins alternate Dialogues between the R-edactor and S-ource in Teeple. Verse 11 ends an interplay involving G-nostic and R. S is not necessarily "Source" in the usual sense. It also involves S-igns Gospel. I have identified purely Roman Sections as well.

This Interplay continues through verse 25, where the E-ditor creates a Play on the Scene with "Behold your Mother" in 26.

"S
21 Then the chief priests of the Jews were saying to Pilate [arth.], “Write not ‘the king of the Jews, ' but that that one said, 'I am king of the Jews. "'
22 Pilate [arth.] answered, "What I have written, I have written. "
23 Then the soldiers, when they crucified Jesus [arth.], took his garments and made four parts, a part for each soldier, and (they took his) tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven from the top through the whole (tunic).
24 Then they said [eipan] to each other, "Let us not split it, but choose about it by lot whose it shall be,”

"R
in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots."
25 Then the soldiers did these things..."

Looking at it this way, verse 24-B identifies R as a Writer who brings a "Source Document" back to the Religious Ideology of the New Religion.
21 through 24-A is entirely from S. R did not change this.

I have this Section as coming from Tacitus, Histories, Book 4;

"They embraced their fellow soldiers, clung to their necks, begged for parting kisses, and entreated that they might not be deserted, or doomed in a common cause to suffer a different lot. They invoked now Mucianus, now the absent Emperor, and, as a last resource, heaven and the Gods, till Mucianus came forward, and calling them "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor," stopped the groundless panic..."

"The land that was offered them they contemptuously rejected, and begged for regular service and pay. Theirs were prayers indeed, but such as it was impossible to reject. They were therefore received into the Praetorian camp. Then such as had reached the prescribed age, or had served the proper number of campaigns, received an honourable discharge; others were dismissed for misconduct; but this was done by degrees and in detail, always the safest mode of reducing the united strength of a multitude..."

It should not be difficult to see that the initial deification of Titus, perhaps Authored (...or at least suggested) by Mucianus and Codified by Tacitus in Historical Literature, gets its final Push from the Redactor R.

CW
Post Reply