#28 Dr Jeannie Constantinou - A Biblical Scholar talks about the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- In this interview, I talk with Dr Jeannie Constantinou about her new book called "The Crucifixion of the King of Glory: The Amazing History and Sublime Mystery of the Passion". What do we know about the crucifixion? Is it depicted correctly in movies? Who was Barabbas? Are the gospels reliable? Why was Pontius Pilate reluctant in sentencing Jesus to death? How is Christ's death by crucifixion viewed among scholars? These are some of the topics we discuss. Support this effort through Patreon (monthly giving): / accordingtojohn
store.ancientf...
Do subscribe to this UA-cam channel.
I write on Substack in Swedish: enligtjohannes...
Twitter: / accordingjohn
Thank you so much for your conversation and for helping me to understand more about our faith. May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you both of you. Amen
Jesus of Nazareth is my favorite film about Christ because despite its errors, it gives the most complete synopsis of the story.
I agree with you!
I am glad to followed your channel. It is an eye opener. Thank you very much for your service. God bless you 🇪🇷🇪🇷🇪🇷
Glory to God!
Thank you for such a brilliant book Dr Jeannie. I highly recommend it.
I am a catechumen in the Russia Orthodox Church and am reading this book currently.
Me too! It’s a great book.
Great interview. I love Dr. Jeannie Constantinou and have learned much from her over the years. Her explanation of the "son of man" expression [starting around the 1:06:00 mark] is the best and clearest explanation I've heard on the subject.
I always think of Judas, having hanged himself, and being shunned by the people AND the priests, abandoned hanged until bloated in the sun. After a few days, someone (we don't know whom) cut him down (the stench got too much) and tossed his body over a cliff, fully disgraced and condemned? My understanding is that he would have been utterly shunned by everyone. No Jewish funeral, no Jewish burial.
A hanging bloated body, then subsequently thrown down a ravine or cliff, would likely rupture on impact.
The people would have come to have seen Judas as the worst kind of creature, no?
Mark 1:5 ... " and all the people of Jerusalem" suggests that St. John's ministry was widely known, and widely accepted by the people of Jerusalem and Judea. (RSV)
While the movie “The greatest story ever told” doesn’t probably have all real depictions of the events in Christ life I think it’s depiction of raising Lazarus is realistic and moving.
@34:47 - the word most Protestants point to is "propitiation" and not atonement.
At about 18:00 she says, “the best one ‘yani’ “ lol she slipped in some Arabic haha
Its interesting how in the "The Passion of the Christ" movie, one may hear Aramaic and some Hebrew by the Jews and Latin by the Romans, but no trace of Greek. Even in the inscription above the cross, the Greek was replaced with the Latin taking two lines so that a three line inscription is maintained. We know how sacred Hebrew was for the Israelites (it still is), and we also know how highly Latin is regarded by traditional catholics, in some way representing Catholicism the same way Hebrew would represent Judaism. So I cannot help but wonder, if this omission of Greek was to imly Catholocism taking over Judaism (by paralleling Hebrew and Aramaic with Latin). I also cannot help but wonder, if this omission also served to dismiss Orthodoxy (remember the trilingual heresy and that for the medieval mind Greek represented the East), as a way of visually saying "we latins were there, the (mob of) jews were there, the greeks came later, we are the original church". In fact when I saw the movie I almost had the sense of the director whispering in the background "take the greek out o' here". I could be wrong, but I think its possible that Gibson was trying to make an additional theological statement in this way.
I'd err on the more likely side that it would require quite a bit of time in exposition to explain why they were all speaking Greek when the main groups weren't Greek, which would require an explanation of the selucid invasion and occupation, the macabeean revolt and reconnect of the temple, the Roman treatises with herod, how herod came to power in the first place, etc. Etc. Etc.
I'm not inclined to assume malice when convenience is available.
@@azurephoenix9546 Why then take off the greek from the inscription on the cross? Also, why significantly change scenes like the one with the jewish trial which are depicted in the gospels with a great amount of detail? If want to be so faithfull to the gospels that you use the original languages, why alter the story represented in the gospels and instead add a bunch of stuff from medieval catholic devotions? By the way, you wouldn't have to create a huge exposition for greek, only have one or two scenes depicting eg a seller of goods speaking greek and/or two roman nobles conversing in greek to show that this is the common language, the language of trade and making business the same way english is functioning now. And I am not assuming malice as the motive for the maker. Rather, given how Gibson's "historical" movies tend to alter the original story to make a point, I am assuming the same. I am not saying that Gibson is anti-orthodox or something, but he could be very well altering the story to make a theological point about the "greeks" ie the EO and the "romans" ie the RCs.
@@kostpap3554
I would say that's probably a fair criticism, that he sacrificed accuracy to make a particular point. It is a very Roman catholic movie since the focus is the cross and you get maybe 5 seconds of resurrection at the end like that's the end of the story or something and not the beginning, but at the same time I understand that because there's basically no division among Christians that he did die and was resurrected, but after that, for whatever reason, there begins division and it doesn't help to stir up scandal and controversy when the goal is to unite around a single truth. I probably would have avoided it as well, in all honesty. But I think it would have confused things to see romans speaking Greek, but also Latin and also Hebrew and also Aramaic, though I think I agree that it would probably not take up too much space, considering how the entire back story between the intensely complex history between Scotland and England was summed up in a card before Braveheart, I don't see why that couldn't be covered the same way before the passion of the Christ. I just try to give grace where I can.
@@azurephoenix9546 Romans would only speak Latin and Greek, and only some high ranking officials like Pilate might know a bit of aramaic. My point was having a hebrew seller speak greek with a roman official so that they may communicate and then comment in aramaic to the nearby seller something like "those pesky romans won't even try to learn our language". But hebrew up to this point is basicaly a ceremonial language, so it would only be used when reciting scripture. Imagine the effect of having established that hebrew is used only when quoting scripture and then have Christ speak with the Sanhedrin in aramaic the whole time, only to then give his "I AM" reply in Hebrew.
@@kostpap3554
Oh Man, that's a really good idea!
Let us remember that a great many of the crowd screaming for the release of Barrabas, had received baptism from St. John! We Christians do NOT get off the hook so easily!
John the Baptist did not administrator Christian Baptism the Baptism of St. John the Baptist was a Baptism of Repentance and not a Christian Mystery or Sacrament! In Christian Baptism we are Baptized in to the death and resurrection of Christ, obviously Christian Baptism is impossible before the Resurrection of Christ.
Yes, we know that. My point is that this IS where Christianity as distinct from ancient Judaism, starts. Otherwise what was the point of St. John's ministry? Why was it necessary for him to perform his mission? Protestantism really has no answer for this. Neither does Judaism. And the Jews who had come to baptism of water and repentance, were made aware of the coming of the One, and their need to prepare! Then St. John had made it quite clear to all at Christ's baptism, that Christ was The One.
This is very different from the state of modern Judaism. Very different. "Blaming" "the Jews" for the crucifixion is popular among some misguided people. But it isn't scriptural. There were a great many in the crowd, screaming for Christ's crucifixion, who HAD recently been followers!!! This is my point.
Question: after Christ our King began his ministry, what was St. John up to? He didn't exactly retire and hang up his boots, and become a genteel peasant farmer. Turns out he still had disciples, at the least.
Mark 2:18
So the "Jews" who turned on Christ had already accepted the baptism of repentance, ostensibly in preparation for the coming. They did this as willing believers.
How many Jews today continue St. John's tradition, and baptise themselves with water for repentance? If they still do this, I am not aware of it.
@@bolshoefeodor6536 To claim that many or most of those who where Baptized by John the Baptist became followers of Christ is absurd. Most religion 2000 years ago just like in our time is and was pure entertainment in the minds of the vast majority of people. Very few people then or now take God seriously.
Now among the Jewish Religious Leadership both then and now there was and remains a great hatred for God. The whole point of the modern Rabbinical Judaism is the rejection of Christ. Modern Judaism was founded at the council of Jamnia in the 1st century AD explicitly as a rejection of Christ so the whole purpose and reason for Judaism is hatred for Christ in that sense it is much like modern Western Atheism.
As for Jewish groups in the time of Christ the Essenes did Baptize people for repentance. Very few Jews in our time maybe a few thousand in all the World attempt to follow the Religion of the Old Testament in a serious way.
@@adolphCat I never said that Adolph. In fact I implied the opposite!!! A great many took what we still recognise today as a significant step TOWARDS becoming Christian, and then fell away. Mark still says "all those from Judea, and those from Jerusalem. ..." took the step of making a journey to repent and receive baptism in the Jordan River! This is gospel fact. Many of those from Jerusalem would have been among the 'rent-a-mob' gathered to call for the crucifixion. It would have been a serious mob, or Pilate would have dismissed the entire case out of hand.
That is all I am saying. Christians should never have been so quick to ascribe to contemporaneous Jews, what was clearly an exceptional situation, that included within it the divine warning against apostasy, lukewarmness, and betrayal!!!
I believe I have heard Dr Jeannie in another interview mention that the mob calling Jesus was quickly assembled by the Priests mainly using the followers of the Temple which was situated right across the street. Most regular people that day were preparing for Passover.