This came up again tonight. I was told I don't know what is written in the ancient manuscripts. Not that no one knows, just that I am too stupid to know. A new one for me!
It's late for me, so more to come later, but I'll leave you with this. A key argument for Bullinger, the magician who invented four crucified, is the word "one" does not appear in the Greek of John 19:18. This is true. It is also true that the words "on either/each side" are not in the Greek either.
"This came up again tonight. I was told I don't know what is written in the ancient manuscripts. Not that no one knows, just that I am too stupid to know. A new one for me! Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating four were crucified with Jesus."
[Any time someone invokes a document they can't present or cite precisely, but upon which their entire argument hinges, I've found it was nothing but hot air. Some overheard something from someone else. "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. It is true that experts can learn things, but it's not the same to say that an expert MUST be correct BECAUSE THEY ARE AN EXPERT. If an expert is correct, they have all sorts of resources they can access- and, more to the point, present- to strengthen their case and DOCUMENT their case. Those who try to SHUT DOWN THE DISCUSSION are all but admitting they've got nothing, and just want to distract from that. We had lots of that in twi, and the ex-twi communities still have large amounts of that, depending on the community.]
"Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating four were crucified with Jesus."
[Horse manure. The ex-twi people would lift that thing high like a banner if that was the case. The photograph in the Companion Bible was shown everywhere- and that didn't make the case, no matter what Bullinger thought. He was mistaken. He saw 5 old stone crosses sitting together, and jumped to the conclusion that it could only have been to support his claim. If that were the case, they would have been made as a set. Instead, they were mixed and matched. Someone collected stone crosses from different sources, possibly sparing them destruction out of respect, possibly for any of a number of other reasons. They were proof of nothing except that people used to make different kinds of stone crosses. There is no such variant. The burden of proof is on the claimant. It is to be accepted to be nonexistent until evidence is presented to show it actually exists. ]
"Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating circus clowns were crucified with Jesus."
"Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating Jesus died from slipping in a tub."
[See how that works? Anyone can claim anything. On the internet, there's always someone ready to claim the most RIDICULOUS NONSENSE. A claim means NOTHING.
By the way, there's a reason there's "critical" Greek texts. Centuries later, people came along and wrote fanfics, whether for entertainment, to advance their agenda, or with noble intent. If you look hard enough, there's texts out there that were written MUCH later with NONSENSE. It would not surprise me to find a "text" from the 20th century asserting 4 crucified..
None of that, BTW, means definitively 4 were NOT crucified, just that the case can't be made that way. I remain flexible on the subject due to a lack of consistent evidence.]
"A key argument for Bullinger, the magician who invented four crucified, is the word "one" does not appear in the Greek of John 19:18. This is true. It is also true that the words "on either/each side" are not in the Greek either. "
[That's old news, and I'll fill in the blanks for you for free. 1) The word "one" was added to the English by a translator who thought that it needed to be there to make the English grammar make sense. He was wrong. If the word was apt, the sentence made as much sense without it, and if the word was not, then he inserted a concept that wasn't in the text- which is a bad thing. What was there in the Greek was the phrase "enteuthen kai enteuthen" (excuse my spelling if it's off), meaning, word for word, "ON THIS SIDE AND ON THIS SIDE", or, to adjust for English grammar, "ON THIS SIDE AND ON THAT SIDE." So, two, on this side and on that side. The argument that the English word "midst" makes a difference here is dishonest because the English meanings of the words are irrelevant when studying the Greek.
2) The other point made was that, when they removed the crucified ones, and went to kill them by breaking their legs, they killed one, then another, and then got to Jesus. If one is going efficiently in a line, that makes Jesus the third in a line. There's some shuffling about the word "other" in the Greek there, as to whether it means something different if there are exactly two in a group, or if there is more. Bullinger asserted there was, but he never supported his claim. It comes out of nowhere, and just happens to support the case he felt the need to make. But we have no guarantee that they went in a straight line. Perhaps they started with the noisiest prisoners and silenced them to stop the screaming. Maybe they cared more about highway robbers than political prisoners, and made sure the most dangerous criminals were dead first. Or any of a number of things of which we could have no knowledge. We suppose we have a lot more answers than we do about their culture. Nuances can vary widely.
3) A third point made is that one account has 2 thieves (or robbers) and another 2 "evildoers". In one, both join the crowd in reviling Jesus, in the other, one does, the other does not. The most common explanation is that there were 2 guys, and both reviled Jesus but one reconsidered and changed his tune. They were up there for hours, he had lots of time to think, it's not illogical.
4) Finally, the order of things is sometimes given differently. 2 of the guys were said to have been led out with Jesus, and it sounds like the other 2 were not. But, really, aren't we squeezing the text? We're approaching texts from another part of the world, many centuries ago, with a modern thinking process. We're expecting a CNN news feed with a minute by minute breakdown, when that was never the point in the first place. How badly were the first century disciples concerned with making every minute fit precisely? It was a few centuries later that anything resembling a "harmony of the Gospels" was made. That was from Greek to Aramaic, and I'm not convinced it wasn't more to try to spare the scribes hundreds of hours of hand-translating and hand-copying Greek texts long before the printing press was around.
Frankly, the harder I look at it, the weaker is the case for "4 crucified." I'm open to the possibility, but they'd have to make a strong case that could answer all objections before I'd change positions. That's not impossible- I reversed my position in the past, and I'm willing to change again if there's a strong enough case for it. Ultimately, it matters not in the plan of salvation. It mattered to vpw, because he could present this and pretend he had access to esoteric, secret knowledge. It matters to certain ex-twi people for exactly the same reason.]
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
"This came up again tonight. I was told I don't know what is written in the ancient manuscripts. Not that no one knows, just that I am too stupid to know. A new one for me! Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating four were crucified with Jesus."
[Any time someone invokes a document they can't present or cite precisely, but upon which their entire argument hinges, I've found it was nothing but hot air. Some overheard something from someone else. "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy. It is true that experts can learn things, but it's not the same to say that an expert MUST be correct BECAUSE THEY ARE AN EXPERT. If an expert is correct, they have all sorts of resources they can access- and, more to the point, present- to strengthen their case and DOCUMENT their case. Those who try to SHUT DOWN THE DISCUSSION are all but admitting they've got nothing, and just want to distract from that. We had lots of that in twi, and the ex-twi communities still have large amounts of that, depending on the community.]
"Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating four were crucified with Jesus."
[Horse manure. The ex-twi people would lift that thing high like a banner if that was the case. The photograph in the Companion Bible was shown everywhere- and that didn't make the case, no matter what Bullinger thought. He was mistaken. He saw 5 old stone crosses sitting together, and jumped to the conclusion that it could only have been to support his claim. If that were the case, they would have been made as a set. Instead, they were mixed and matched. Someone collected stone crosses from different sources, possibly sparing them destruction out of respect, possibly for any of a number of other reasons. They were proof of nothing except that people used to make different kinds of stone crosses. There is no such variant. The burden of proof is on the claimant. It is to be accepted to be nonexistent until evidence is presented to show it actually exists. ]
"Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating circus clowns were crucified with Jesus."
"Apparently, though never mentioned in any critical text, a variant exists explicitly stating Jesus died from slipping in a tub."
[See how that works? Anyone can claim anything. On the internet, there's always someone ready to claim the most RIDICULOUS NONSENSE. A claim means NOTHING.
By the way, there's a reason there's "critical" Greek texts. Centuries later, people came along and wrote fanfics, whether for entertainment, to advance their agenda, or with noble intent. If you look hard enough, there's texts out there that were written MUCH later with NONSENSE. It would not surprise me to find a "text" from the 20th century asserting 4 crucified..
None of that, BTW, means definitively 4 were NOT crucified, just that the case can't be made that way. I remain flexible on the subject due to a lack of consistent evidence.]
"A key argument for Bullinger, the magician who invented four crucified, is the word "one" does not appear in the Greek of John 19:18. This is true. It is also true that the words "on either/each side" are not in the Greek either. "
[That's old news, and I'll fill in the blanks for you for free. 1) The word "one" was added to the English by a translator who thought that it needed to be there to make the English grammar make sense. He was wrong. If the word was apt, the sentence made as much sense without it, and if the word was not, then he inserted a concept that wasn't in the text- which is a bad thing. What was there in the Greek was the phrase "enteuthen kai enteuthen" (excuse my spelling if it's off), meaning, word for word, "ON THIS SIDE AND ON THIS SIDE", or, to adjust for English grammar, "ON THIS SIDE AND ON THAT SIDE." So, two, on this side and on that side. The argument that the English word "midst" makes a difference here is dishonest because the English meanings of the words are irrelevant when studying the Greek.
2) The other point made was that, when they removed the crucified ones, and went to kill them by breaking their legs, they killed one, then another, and then got to Jesus. If one is going efficiently in a line, that makes Jesus the third in a line. There's some shuffling about the word "other" in the Greek there, as to whether it means something different if there are exactly two in a group, or if there is more. Bullinger asserted there was, but he never supported his claim. It comes out of nowhere, and just happens to support the case he felt the need to make. But we have no guarantee that they went in a straight line. Perhaps they started with the noisiest prisoners and silenced them to stop the screaming. Maybe they cared more about highway robbers than political prisoners, and made sure the most dangerous criminals were dead first. Or any of a number of things of which we could have no knowledge. We suppose we have a lot more answers than we do about their culture. Nuances can vary widely.
3) A third point made is that one account has 2 thieves (or robbers) and another 2 "evildoers". In one, both join the crowd in reviling Jesus, in the other, one does, the other does not. The most common explanation is that there were 2 guys, and both reviled Jesus but one reconsidered and changed his tune. They were up there for hours, he had lots of time to think, it's not illogical.
4) Finally, the order of things is sometimes given differently. 2 of the guys were said to have been led out with Jesus, and it sounds like the other 2 were not. But, really, aren't we squeezing the text? We're approaching texts from another part of the world, many centuries ago, with a modern thinking process. We're expecting a CNN news feed with a minute by minute breakdown, when that was never the point in the first place. How badly were the first century disciples concerned with making every minute fit precisely? It was a few centuries later that anything resembling a "harmony of the Gospels" was made. That was from Greek to Aramaic, and I'm not convinced it wasn't more to try to spare the scribes hundreds of hours of hand-translating and hand-copying Greek texts long before the printing press was around.
Frankly, the harder I look at it, the weaker is the case for "4 crucified." I'm open to the possibility, but they'd have to make a strong case that could answer all objections before I'd change positions. That's not impossible- I reversed my position in the past, and I'm willing to change again if there's a strong enough case for it. Ultimately, it matters not in the plan of salvation. It mattered to vpw, because he could present this and pretend he had access to esoteric, secret knowledge. It matters to certain ex-twi people for exactly the same reason.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.