Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:59 am

Ascension of Isaiah 18:14

And the Archon of this world will extend his hand over the Son of God, and kill him, and hang him on a tree

The hanging on a tree is a distinct act that follows temporally the death of Jesus, and does not precedes it.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 725
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by GakuseiDon » Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:49 am

Could this be a translation issue?

The English translation of the Ethiopic version: 9:14 (not 18:14): http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html

And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

Do you have a link to the translation you are using?

The Latin2 version can be found here: https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n199

Et princips mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium dei, et suspendet illum in ligno et occidet nesciens qui sit.

According to Google Translate, it is "hang him on a tree and kill him without knowing who he is."
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:03 am

No, I have simply translated from Spanish to Italian, and from Italian to English.

The Spanish source is the following one (the page is number 291):

https://books.google.it/books?id=hd5MAA ... te&f=false

I quote:
“Y el Archonte de este mundo extenderà su mano sobre el Hijo de Dios, y lo matarà, y lo colgarà de un madero”

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:06 am

This passage comes from Ascension of Isaiah 18:14 and is different from that meant by GDon since it is found only in a Latin manuscript. At least, according to Marc Stéphane:
The Ascension of Isaiah, in a Latin manuscript, conforms with the standard Jewish law that an executed criminal’s body would be hung on a tree as a public warning; that is, the hanging of a body on the tree an act that followed the execution; this was the standard Jewish understanding of what it meant for a body to be cursed by hanging on a tree;
https://vridar.org/2018/10/13/jesus-fro ... ment-87809
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5937
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:57 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:49 am
Could this be a translation issue?

The English translation of the Ethiopic version: 9:14 (not 18:14): http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html

And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.

Do you have a link to the translation you are using?

The Latin2 version can be found here: https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n199

Et princips mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium dei, et suspendet illum in ligno et occidet nesciens qui sit.

According to Google Translate, it is "hang him on a tree and kill him without knowing who he is."
This gets complicated, apparently.
Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:06 am
This passage comes from Ascension of Isaiah 18:14 and is different from that meant by GDon since it is found only in a Latin manuscript. At least, according to Marc Stéphane:
The Ascension of Isaiah, in a Latin manuscript, conforms with the standard Jewish law that an executed criminal’s body would be hung on a tree as a public warning; that is, the hanging of a body on the tree an act that followed the execution; this was the standard Jewish understanding of what it meant for a body to be cursed by hanging on a tree;
https://vridar.org/2018/10/13/jesus-fro ... ment-87809
There are two Latin versions. L1 does not cover this portion of the Ascension. L2 does, but derives from a single manuscript, according to R. H. Charles: https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n21 (lefthand page). Charles states that this manuscript, now apparently lost, was printed in Venice in 1522, reprinted by Gieseler in 1832, and reprinted again by Dillmann in 1877.

The Internet Archive has Dillmann's 1877 edition: https://archive.org/details/ascensioisa ... ll/page/80. (I cannot seem to access the 1522 or 1832 editions.) It shows the following: Et princips mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium dei, et occidet illum, et suspendet illum in ligno et occidit nesciens qui sit.... So the killing is mentioned twice in L2, one instance of which is being taken as a scribal addition. You can see that Charles has the first instance bracketed in his edition: https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n199, calling it "an obvious interpolation" in footnote 8.

The actual situation, then, is not nearly as simple as either the translations (which seem almost universally to omit the first instance and retain the second, except for that Spanish one, apparently) or the quick summary of Marc Stéphane would lead us to believe.

Also, the Ethiopic text at this point appears to be a bit of a mess: https://archive.org/details/ascensioisa ... ll/page/42, with phrases absent in one manuscript which are present in another, not to mention at least one emendation.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:16 am

Thanks, Ben!
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:57 am
calling it "an obvious interpolation" in footnote 8.
I like the irony of “”. :whistling:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5937
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:18 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:16 am
Thanks, Ben!
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:57 am
calling it "an obvious interpolation" in footnote 8.
I like the irony of “”. :whistling:
It is just a direct quotation.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:35 am

An addition I should do.

The Latin expression:

Et princips mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium dei, et occidet illum, et suspendet illum in ligno et occidit nesciens qui sit.


...is very similar in a modern proposition in Italian (I would believe that the thing is seen less in English), since there is not a contradiction, in the same proposition, between to repeat twice the verb “occidet” (first occurrence of the Latin phrase) and “occidit” (second occurrence of the Latin phrase).


What I am saying is that the author (even if he was a modern author, I mean), could very well write:
“And the archon killed him, and hanged him on a tree and killed him without knowing him”
...having in mind that the second occurrence of “killed him” is simply explaining the first occurrence in terms of what is the knowledge of the killers.

Hence, the double occurrence of “killed him” can't be an interpolation only because it occurs twice.

Therefore, the editor could define it an interpolation only because he found it disturbing in view of the his assumptions about the “historical” Jesus (that he died on the cross and not before the cruxifixion).

EDIT: It is as if the author had meant:
“And the archon killed him, and hanged him on a tree and killed him [=and they dared so much] without knowing him” [=since they didn't know him]
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5937
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:59 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:35 am
An addition I should do.

The Latin expression:

Et princips mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium dei, et occidet illum, et suspendet illum in ligno et occidit nesciens qui sit.


...is very similar in a modern proposition in Italian (I would believe that the thing is seen less in English), since there is not a contradiction, in the same proposition, between to repeat twice the verb “occidet” (first occurrence of the Latin phrase) and “occidit” (second occurrence of the Latin phrase).


What I am saying is that the author (even if he was a modern author, I mean), could very well write:
“And the archon killed him, and hanged him on a tree and killed him without knowing him”
...having in mind that the second occurrence of “killed him” is simply explaining the first occurrence in terms of what is the knowledge of the killers.

Hence, the double occurrence of “killed him” can't be an interpolation only because it occurs twice.

Therefore, the editor could define it an interpolation only because he found it disturbing in view of the his assumptions about the “historical” Jesus (that he died on the cross and not before the cruxifixion).

EDIT: It is as if the author had meant:
“And the archon killed him, and hanged him on a tree and killed him [=and they dared so much] without knowing him” [=since they didn't know him]
I agree completely that, if one considers the Latin by itself, the meaning could follow these lines.

It seems, however, that both the Ethiopic and the Slavonic lack this doubling up of occidet. Because the Ethiopic and the Slavonic appear to represent two distinct recensions, with L2 being closer to the Slavonic than to the Ethiopic, it is more likely that L2 is the fluke than that both the Ethiopic and the Slavonic are the fluke.

ETA: Charles has a diagram of the family affinities here: https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n35.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:07 am

In addition, it seems that the killing of the Son becomes even more blasphemous (more scandalously embarrassing!) if they hanged his corpse and not him still in life, since if they did so (=the death before the crucifixion), then the reason is that they wanted to curse him in the full knowledge of Deut 21:23. This can only aggravate their impiety against the Son.


The transgression is not only the killing of the Son of the God (1), but also the ostentation of the his hanging corpse (2). And probably it is meant that the corpse was left hanging also during the night to incur deliberately in another transgression (3) against Deut 21:23.


Hence the focus on the “killing him without knowing him” (second occurrence of “occidit”) seems to stress their impiety of having his corpse hanged on the tree (even during the night?).


Hence the question: is the solar eclipse in the Gospel meant to hide the embarrassing fact of the previous myth?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply