Re: CHAT dating the Gospels (was: Languages in Gibson's Passion)

Staving Ray Brown:


>On Thursday, March 11, 2004, at 09:49 AM, Peter Bleackley wrote:
>[snip]
>>There is a church in Italy which processes an object claimed to be the
>>Titulus. Paleographic analysis,
>
>'twould be very remarkable if it were the titulus. Do you know more about
>the palaeographic analysis?
>
>>and the fact that the inscriptions are not
>>in the order mentioned in the Gospels,
>
>Actually, only _one_ Gospel mentions the three languages, John's Gospel.
>Although John mentions them in the order Hebrew, Latin, Greek, it doesn't
>necessarily mean that the titulus had them in that same order.
A forger would probably have stuck to the order mentioned in the Gospels,
rather than varying it.

>>suggest that it may well be genuine.
>>(eg, first century abbreviations are used, that a later forger would be
>>unlikely to know.)
>
>Interesting - can you tell us more? Even if it is genuine, it confirms the
>presence of a titulus (i.e. the Gospel writers didn't make it up); indeed,
>  it wasn't exactly an uncommon practice. Personally I can see no good
>reason for doubting it in the case of Jesus.
I saw an article about the claimed Titulus in a newspaper, probably the
Independent. Searching their archives might uncover it. The article also
mentioned that two Gospels mention the Titulus, that they give the
languages in different orders, and that the order on the alleged Titulus
corresponds to neither of them.
Your views on the origins of John's Gospel correspond with my own. There is
a passage in the Crucifixion narrative, beginning, "This is the evidence of
one who saw it, trustworthy evidence, and he knows he speaks the truth..."
that indicates that this is a likely scenario.

Pete

Reply