re: Jesus's cross
I agree. I think that is what I said in my first post on the subject. I don't really want to start a dispute on the nationality of the soldiers, but your citations make me think again about John's description, which seems strongly to indicate an eye-witness, very old, very anti-cadduqi, perhaps maddened by the horrors he had observed and his inability to stop them and his inability to forget them.
Why would Roman soldiers be so angry with Jesus? What did they care about his Jesus's alleged blasphemy and opposition to the priestly party. Why Temple soldiers would be angry is obvious enough. Moreover, John's report of the soldiers quarreling over the clothes of Jesus which fulfilled scripture seems impossible for Romans, but natural for Jews.
Where did Matthew get his eye-witness reports. Mark? And where did Mark get the information. Peter? But Peter was not an eye-witness of the trial and crucifixion. He was in hiding until resurrection morn. I suspect the Galilean women, whom all of the evangelists report to be witnesses of the execution progress and of the crucifixion itself. All of the reports appear to be quasi-narratives written down long after the event by people who were told by people who were close to the events, or who synthesized from what they heard so strong an impression that they believed it was true despite the powerful conflicts over who was at the Crucifixion (there is agreement only on Jesus).
Why is Simon mentioned in all four gospels. Mark mentions Alexander and Rufus as sons of Simon who his readers might know. |
