Scapegoat Sacrifice and the Crucifixion

[Peter Kirby]

It's possible that an emphasis on 'priestliness' and on Yom Kippur (elements that are not really in Paul) were first found in other sources/groups, not immediately connected to Paul, as represented e.g. by Hebrews. (This may be what you are already saying.) And that they were later fused into one.

[Secret Alias]

elements that are not really in Paul (= emphasis ... on Yom Kippur)

Not true Romans is developed from the Yom Kippur sacrifice and the authorship of Hebrews is up in the air

[Peter Kirby]

elements that are not really in Paul (= emphasis ... on Yom Kippur)

Not true Romans is developed from the Yom Kippur sacrifice and the authorship of Hebrews is up in the air

Well then, looks like you'll have to get over your own personal hangups about mixing the two. That's you. That's not your sources. All you.

[Secret Alias]

And this is very curious also from the Marcionite myth in Eznik:

And when the Lord of the world saw that divinity of Jesus, he discovered that another God apart from himself existed. And Jesus said to him, 'I am in litigation with you, and let no one judge between us, but the laws that you wrote.'

And when they had placed the Law in the middle, Jesus said to him "Did you not write in your Law, 'Whoever will murder he will die, (cf Num 35.30 - 34)?' and 'Whoever sheds the blood of a righteous one, his blood will be shed (Gen 9:6)?'" And he said, 'Yes, I wrote."

And Jesus said to him "So give yourself into my hands, so that I might slaughter and shed your blood, because rightly am I more lawful than you, and great favors have I bestowed on your creatures." And he began to reckon up those favors that he had bestowed on that one's creatures.

The reciprocity here is quite unusual. On the one hand Genesis 9:6 if allowed to continue implies that the underlying reason why murder is wrong is because of the 'image of God' is being harmed:

And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.

The idea seems to be that because the lower god killed the 'image of God' (the justification under the law against murder) God himself has to be murdered. Jesus associates himself with this commandment requiring that Yahweh die (!). Does Yahweh carry through? Who kills him? It's very curious but what I am getting at is that there appears to be two things (man and man) which are mirrors of one another where what happens to one has an effect on the other - much like the sacrifice of the two goats. In short, Jesus's death not only affects humanity (i.e. he died for them) but also for Yahweh.

[Secret Alias]

Well then, looks like you'll have to get over your own personal hangups about mixing the two. That's you. That's not your sources. All you.

I am not sure it comes down to a 'hang up.' Intellectual probity demands we understand what we are dealing with. The Marcionites thought Paul wrote the gospel. If mythicists think that everything is 'made up' (= a myth) why would Paul have placed the death on the Passover when he could just as easily have had Jesus die on Yom Kippur?

[Secret Alias]

Also the Passover sacrifice really only makes sense if the community was dreading some outside hostile force (= the Egyptians, Pharaoh or whatever enemies were threatening the Jews. Strangely however Jesus's death is connected with 'redemption' - cosmic and eternal. This is more fitting with Yom Kippur than Passover. The way I see it (and I could be wrong) Jews carry out Passover because God commanded their ancestors to do it for eternity because he redeemed them in Egypt (= a past event). But Yom Kippur is very much in the here and now and it looks toward the future. There isn't a historical event that it is connected with. It is a repeated completion of the Days of Awe (Yamim Noraim) or the Days of Repentance. I don't see how Paul could have viewed a Paschal sacrifice in terms of the Yom Kippur sacrifice.

[Peter Kirby]

Well then, looks like you'll have to get over your own personal hangups about mixing the two. That's you. That's not your sources. All you.

I am not sure it comes down to a 'hang up.' Intellectual probity demands we understand what we are dealing with. The Marcionites thought Paul wrote the gospel. If mythicists think that everything is 'made up' (= a myth) why would Paul have placed the death on the Passover when he could just as easily have had Jesus die on Yom Kippur?

Paul doesn't do either. He does refer to Jesus as their passover that has been sacrificed:

1 Corinthians 5:7
Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.

This is not attributed on the basis of a historical person crucified around Passover. The reference isn't to time of year of death but to what Christ is.

It doesn't even sound like a historical reference at all. Sounds like "made up" "myth". That's just how it is.

I don't see how Paul could have viewed a Paschal sacrifice in terms of the Yom Kippur sacrifice.

You've rejected the obvious answer already--he didn't give a flying fuck. You're on your own then. Let us know if you figure it out.

[Secret Alias]

he didn't give a flying fuck.

Almost impossible. Paul gives us every other reason to believe that (a) he believes in the scriptures and (b) that he was an observant Jew previous to being a Christian.

[Secret Alias]

Another odd thing (and something that has always bothered me):

1. Clement identifies the gospel as taking place over a year (we know this means exactly 360 days or the like because of Irenaeus)
2. Clement indicates the gospel begins on Yom Kippur (with his citation of the variant of Luke 4 where the 'year of favor' liturgy in the synagogue is referenced)
3. But our gospels end with a Passover sacrifice

It would be impossible to have a 360 day gospel narrative and begin on Yom Kippur and end on Passover. The solutions are (a) the gospel ran Passover to Passover sacrifice (b) Yom Kippur to Yom Kippur sacrifice (c) Yom Kippur to Yom Kippur ascendance with a Passover sacrifice and a ridiculously long post resurrection section (6 months).

Given that most of the people at this forum have little idea of the traditional Jewish and Samaritan interpretations of Yom Kippur some background.

It is the tenth day of the seventh month, it represents the traditional 'the day of judgment' and the beginning of the calculation of the Jubilee year.

In other words, when Jesus stood in the Galilean synagogue and read what was certainly originally ALL OF what has always appeared in 61:2 - i.e. 'the year of favor and the day of judgement of our God, to comfort those who mourn' - it was interpreted as pointing to a specific day of a very specific year - the Jubilee. Hence the gospel likely began on Yom Kippur.

That Yom Kippur was identified as the 'day of judgment' in our earliest sources is clear from the Samaritan tradition as well as the most important Qumran texts (11QMelkizedek). In this fragmentary scroll = 'the year of favor and the day of judgement' are specifically interpreted as meaning 'Yom Kippur which begins the Jubilee year.' The Samaritan tradition, while not recognizing Isaiah, preserves the original reading of Deuteronomy 32:35 - יוֹם נָקָם reflected in the LXX and employed Isaiah 61:2.

The Samaritan Arabic commentary on the Torah makes absolutely clear that heralds were sent out on the Day of Atonement to go into all countries over the next six months blowing the shofar in every land and region with the announcement of the information of the approach of the Jubilee Year and the release of captives. The Arabic word here is bashîrah which itself goes back to the Hebrew bassorah. The person doing it is the mubashshir = Hebrew mevasser, or the bashîr. Notice carefully that the bashîrah is not the information, but the announcement of it. This is the connotation of the Greek euangelion. Notice that the meaning only becomes clear and sharp in the context of the Samaritan halachah.

The implication of this understanding is staggering as there is strong tradition in Jewish and Samaritan sources that Moses received the Law on Yom Kippur. Moreover, and more importantly for our purposes, Yom Kippur is also the day identified by Jews that God sits on his judgment throne (= cf Rom 3:25). These ideas go back to a very early period where for example where 4Q156 (4QTargum of Leviticus) has a description of the Yom Kippur ritual where the word 'mercy seat' is replaced by 'throne.' Daniel Stokl Ben Ezra also sees parallels with the enthronement of God on Yom Kippur dating back to the Book of Enoch but the idea is certainly present throughout the Mishnah, the Babylonian Talmud and later rabbinic literature.

[Peter Kirby]

he didn't give a flying fuck.

Almost impossible. Paul gives us every other reason to believe that (a) he believes in the scriptures and (b) that he was an observant Jew previous to being a Christian.

And you think you know what all of that implies. That's your problem. It's not an inherent problem.

Your sense of consistency and the importance attached to such consistency mean exactly nothing.

You've also failed to provide any better and more-supported explanation than "no fucks given," which would be the null hypothesis here.