From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:48:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.184446.23437@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>>This is not the parsimonious explanation.
>
>Then what is? Why were the authors of Matthew and Luke unhappy with
>this passage? I can think of no other plausible explanation. This
>is the only part of Mark's crucifixion narrative they both left out.
>In general, those authors frequently added material, but were reluctant
>to delete (especially Matthew). 
>
>John Ata seems to think that Jesus SHOULD have died this quickly. If so,
>why was Pilate depicted as being surprised?
>
>>Robert> (Another significant deletion is that of Mark's youth who fled
>>Robert> naked in the garden, for reasons that might best be discussed
>>Robert> on "soc.motss".)
>>
>>This has usually been interpreted to have been Mark himself, who was
>>probably the best individual to have known how well the youth was
>>dressed.  He fled naked (much to his shame) rather than be caught and
>>arrested.  So, Robert, how does "soc.motss" come into the picture?
>
>Well, the identification with Mark is purely conjectural. 
>
>The link to "soc.motss" involves the argument that "the youth who fled
>naked in the garden" in Mark (and conspicuously ignored by Matthew and
>Luke) is the same as "the disciple Jesus loved" in John, whose head
>Jesus cradled in his bosom. The passages from  the "Secret Gospel of Mark", 
>discovered by the late Morton Smith in a newly-found Epistle of
>Clement of Alexandria (this IS legit, Smith's analysis of said Epistle
>has been published by the Harvard Univ. Press) bring the Lazarus story
>into Mark, and suggest that Beloved Disciple = Naked Youth = Lazarus,
>which dovetails with the statement in John that the Chief Priests
>sought to arrest Lazarus; hence, the attempted arrest of the youth,
>which otherwise makes no sense. (This is a very brief summary; the
>detailed argument is in "The Making of the Messiah").

Well, I've heard of stretching stories before, but this really takes the
cake!  Here is the passage where Lazarus is introduced in John's Gospel:

JOH 11:1    Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the        
            village of Mary and her sister Martha.


Now here are the passages in John's Gospel where he refers to the John
the Apostle:

JOH 13:23   One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to  
            him.                                                               
                                                                               
JOH 19:26   When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved    
            standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your  
            son,"                                                              
                                                                               
JOH 21:7    Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter,                 
            "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say,            
            "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him          
            (For he had taken it off) and jumped into the water.               
                                                                               
JOH 21:20   Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was       
            following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against      
            Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray    
            you?")

Please note that Lazarus is never referenced as a disciple of Jesus.  He
like John the Apostle was beloved by Jesus but unlike him was not a
disciple.  John, the Apostle, is always referenced as the "disciple
whom Jesus loved" or at least a "disciple".

Now if someone want to make the perverse case that Jesus's love for his
disciple and friend was sexual in nature, then it certainly doesn't need
John and Lazarus to be the same person in order to do this.  Nor was
the desire of the Chief priests and Elders to kill Lazurus any great mystery.
Jesus raising Lazurus from the dead must have convinced a lot of people to
listen to Him over their objections.  With their power over the people
dwindling, it was not unthinkable but pretty plausable that the "powers that
be" wanted to remove the constant reminder of Jesus's triumph over death.

To quote the NIV Bible:

JOH 12:9    Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there    
            and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom    
            he had raised from the dead.
JOH 12:10   So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well,           
JOH 12:11   for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus    
            and putting their faith in him.

Of course Robert, being a Scepticus Maximus (whatever that really is),
I wouldn't really expect you to fall for such convuluted theories as
you've espoused above in "The Makings of the Messiah" :)

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17857 alt.conspiracy:11200 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3487 talk.politics.misc:51260 alt.politics.elections:16370