Is the crowning of Jesus with a crown of thorns by Roman soldiers within biblical accounts a real occurence - or an allegorical or literary device within the gospel and specifically Jesus’s passion? I think this can be looked at very literally, but the spiritual meaning and entendre’ is doubly apparent within this thinly veiled metaphor. Was the crowning with thorns account manufactured and added for psychological and spiritual impact by the story teller/s, or a real account of an occurence of spiritual portent manifest (i.e.- synchronistic to Jesus’s previous night alone on the mount?).
Since our only knowledge of the life and death of Jesus is from the New Testament, how would we know what was actual and what was invented? We don’t have a Book Talk interview with Luke, where he admitted, “That part I wrote about the crown of thorns? Just allegorical.” Everything else is a matter of opinion, not fact.
did anyone such as josephus (sp?) have anything to say about it? or maybe he didn’t come around till all the apostles got killed.
AFAIK and IMABS but even the New Testament was not written down as we have it today until two hundred years after Jesus’ life.
Josephus was also not a contemporary of jesus’. And he didn’t have much to say about him either. He describes him as a balding middle aged man with a slight hump and brown skin (IIRC). Morover he calls him a trouble maker and worse.
Or was that the Roman historian…??
Ahh… but is that all there is to it? We don’t know, so we musn’t assume!- instead we must assume it is literal and the final word! The symbolism here is unmistakable and transparent…however the truth is more complicated…a roman had to actually got to the trouble of finding thorns and manufacturing a wreath to place on Jesus’s head. A thorny ordeal for certain. And if true, indicative of premeditated cruelty, sarcasm, and irony. (I guess this really wouldn’t be so surprising judging from some MB flames and attacks I’ve seen on the internet.) What is more likely within stories of mythological proportions…allegory and symbolism or truth?
If it was invented for allegorical reasons, it probably wouldn’t have happened to others who were crucified right? Can that be historically verified?
The Gospel of Mark is believed to have been written circa A.D. 65-70, Matthew circa A.D. 70, Luke and the Acts of the Apostles circa A.D. 75, and the Gospel of John A.D. 90-100. Complete copies of Matthew and John exist from about A.D. 200.
Where do you get these ideas? Here is the sum total of what the Jewish historian Josephus, writing in the early 90s A.D., had to say about Jesus. Text in capital letters is believed to have been later interpolations by Christian editors:
And if it was what indeed occurred, it probably wouldn’t have happened to others who were crucified. Not too many crucifiction victims were touted as “King of the Jews,” thus needing a crown.
Make that crucifixion. I knew something didn’t look right.
All four Gospel writers attest to it.
It seems likely the crown was a historical fact. Remember, part of the charge against Jesus, so that the Romans would execute him, was that he was making himself a king in rivalry to Ceasar. (The thought, or hope, that Jesus was the ‘Messiah,’ meant in first century Jewish terms that he would eventually be a victorious king overthrowing all oppressors, i.e, the Romans.)
And so, part of the abuse from the soldiers who mocked Jesus as ‘king’ was to put a hurtful crown of thorns on him. In John’s Gospel, Jesus is brought before the people in crown and robe and Pilate says, “Behold your king.” (To show that he is no king, so go home – Pilate’s main concern was to avoid a riot.) When Jesus was crucified, a sign was posted above him, “Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews.” [In Latin, it becomes initialized in art as INRI.]
[I’m no fundamentalist, mind you. I can make a convincing argument that almost all of the infancy narrative is theological fiction. The Passion narrative, OTOH, is seems to be reliable eye witness accounts.]
Peace.
Timeline for the writing of the New Testament. The Quelle source is written at least 30 years after the execution. Matthew is written around 40 years after that. So at the bare minimum, the writer of Matthew is working from a source which was most likely collected oral tradition 70 years later. So, yeah, I’d be willing to wager there was some artistic license taken. Also, it is in the author’s interest to make the event as fantastic as possible, not the plain old ordinary form of Roman justice it most likely was.
Oh yeah, to answer the OP, maybe, maybe not. Sorry. I think most biblical scholars would have trouble definitively proving the Crown story true or untrue. I’m sure you could find some who attest it is a real event and others that consider it a literary construct.
We don’t have any sources outside of the Gospels to say it happened. However, on the other hand, it’s not unbelievable. Roman soldiers weren’t exactly known for their compassion, and there weren’t any laws mandating humane treatment of prisoners.
Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris claims to have the original Crown of Thorns.
Couldn’t the Crown of Thorns, as described, be a figurative interpretation of a jeer or a particular cruelty meted out by a roman soldier? A psychological cruelty- Not an actual crown of thorns? Is there no chance that a crown of thorns may have been a literal misinterpretation of a figurative expression taken as literal by early Greek and Roman translators from the hebrew?
Anything’s possible, but that scenario strikes me as highly unlikely, contrived, overly complex, and much less believable than there being an actual crown of thorns. Apply Occam’s Razor.
And, why are you so anxious to have it be a figure of speech (which should be known by its appearing in other writing) rather than an accurate description? It appears that you’re willing to go through sizable intellectual contortions to avoid accepting something that most people seem to find quite plausible.
The description attributed to Josephus is genuine, in the very limited sense that another writer does quote him to that effect. But that other writer was writing in the eighth century and the passage appears in no known manuscript of Josephus’ works. It is therefore ridiculous to dismiss the New Testament on the grounds that it was not written down until ‘two hundred years after Jesus’ life’ and then to cite uncritically the ‘Josephus’ description which is not recorded until five hundred years after you (incorrectly) think the New Testament was written.
http://www.members.aol.com/FlJosephus2/MailAndFAQ.htm#Jesus_appearance
As for the OP, Walloon nailed the answer (so to speak) in one.
APB/ as I said I’'m not a bible scholar, and serves me right for relying on the history channel! I was drawing from their “Complete Story of Jesus” special I watched.
Thanx for clearing this up for me 