The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:37 am

It think and believe definitely that the Book of Revelation reveals the oldest belief of the Pillars. Jesus was immolated, not crucified. Since only this death could allow a so strong effusion of blood that was able to purify the sins:

Hebrews 9:22
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Notoriusly, the crucifixion of a living victim can only allow a minimal effusion of blood. It is simply ridicolous to think that the nail wounds were able to shed so much blood to purify alone the sins.

But the Jewish custom could allow the crucifixion (really, a hanging) of the only corpse, since the corpse is already drained of all the blood.

I think that this explains why the crucifixion is mentioned only one time in Hebrews 6:4-6:
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

The sinners crucify figuratively the Son of God again. But they are playing here the role of jackals: they rage on only the corpse of Jesus, crucifying it. The first time the corpse of Jesus was crucified by the demons, after the assassination of Jesus.

Hence I can apply the Argument from Silence on the idea of crucifixion in Hebrews: it is never mentioned when the topic is the Passion of Jesus.

In conclusion, the idea that the living Jesus was crucified, and not only the his corpse, is introduced only by the Earliest Gospel after the 70 CE. Since the crucifixion of a living being is recognizably only a Roman custom. Not a Jewish custom.

Hence, when Paul talks about the crucifixion, he refers to the crucifixion of the corpse only.


The euhemerization of Jesus coincides stricto sensu with the romanization of the his crucifixion.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6632
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:58 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:37 am
It think and believe definitely that the Book of Revelation reveals the oldest belief of the Pillars. Jesus was immolated, not crucified. Since only this death could allow a so strong effusion of blood that was able to purify the sins:

Hebrews 9:22
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Notoriusly, the crucifixion of a living victim can only allow a minimal effusion of blood. It is simply ridicolous to think that the nail wounds were able to shed so much blood to purify alone the sins.
While I am sympathetic to the potential point here, crucifixion was often an entire ordeal which included more than just the fixing of the body (living or dead) to a stake. Scourging or flogging frequently accompanied crucifixion. Livy writes in History of Rome 22.13 of a guide who "was scourged and crucified in order to strike terror into the others," and in History of Rome 22.13 of a magistrate and a treasurer whom Mago had "scourged and crucified." Thus blood could be associated with crucifixion as a matter of course:

Josephus, Antiquities 19.1.13 §94: 94 Ἔνθα δὲ καὶ σημεῖα μανθάνει δύο γενέσθαι· καὶ γὰρ μῖμος εἰσάγεται, καθ᾽ ὃν σταυροῦται ληφθεὶς ἡγεμών, ὅ τε ὀρχηστὴς δρᾶμα εἰσάγει Κινύραν, ἐν ᾧ αὐτός τε ἐκτείνετο καὶ ἡ θυγάτηρ Μύρρα, αἷμά τε ἦν τεχνητὸν πολὺ καὶ περὶ τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐκκεχυμένον καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν Κινύραν. / 94 And here he perceived two prodigies that happened there. For a pantomime actor was introduced, by whom a leader of robbers was crucified, and he introduced the drama Cinyras, in which he himself was killed, as well as his daughter Myrrha, and a great quantity of artificial blood was poured around both the crucified one and Cinyras.

Cicero, Against Verres 2.4.11: With what face have you presented yourself before the eyes of the Roman people, when you have not yet pulled down that cross which is even now stained with Roman blood [illam crucem quae etiam nunc avis Romani sanguine redundat], which is fixed up in your city by the harbor, and have not thrown it into the sea and purified all that place, before you came to Rome, and before this tribunal?

I would love to be able to explain the introduction of the crucifixion as the mode of death for a purely mythical or legendary Messiah figure, but so far every explanation comes across as a bit of a "just so" story. Yes, some people could have eccentrically imposed crucifixion upon such a scenario, but did they? It does not seem inevitable; no scriptural or parascriptural passage leads naturally in that direction with the single possible exception of Wisdom of Solomon 2.20 ("let us condemn him with a shameful death"), if we allow (as I do) that crucifixion qualifies as a fairly obvious choice for a "shameful death." Or one has to fill in the blanks (as I myself have before and may yet do again in the future) and imagine that some group worshiped a god named Jesus who had been "crucified" (in myth) like Inana; yet no actual evidence exists for such a group; the case is purely circumstantial and depends upon the perceived need to solve a problem with other scenarios.

If some maneuver like that is all it took to create Christianity, so be it. But the historicist does not have to deal with that issue, and I wonder whether David's recent summary of a(n apparently) minimally historicist scenario might not be easier to defend. I am not of the persuasion that purely mythicist origins of Christianity are impossible or or even necessarily implausible; what I question is whether they are the best explanation of the available evidence.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:34 am

Scourging or flogging frequently accompanied crucifixion
I don't think that the defenders of minimal view of a historical Jesus have to assume necessarily a historical nucleus behind the Gospel stories of scourging or flogging by Roman soldiers, in order to defend the point that much blood was shed. It is to require too much Roman attention on a presumed messianist who did some disturb in Jerusalem without to derive the attention of Philo or Josephus. Some even argued that the Roman soldiers were too much disciplined to abandon themselves to tortures of that kind.

In addition, I am reading this about the phoenician god Mot-Aleyin:

I am Aleyin (son of) Baal… I am the lamb who is offered as expiatory sacrifice with pure wheat...

I am translating from : Dussaud René, Le sanctuaire et les dieux phéniciens des Ras-Shamra,R.H.R., N° 2-3, 1932.
no scriptural or parascriptural passage leads naturally in that direction with the single possible exception of Wisdom of Solomon 2.20 ("let us condemn him with a shameful death")
I should add the Psalm 22:16, also.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:58 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:58 am
Yes, some people could have eccentrically imposed crucifixion upon such a scenario, but did they? It does not seem inevitable
Ben, you may be interested to read this article that answers just your question:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1454912?se ... b_contents

The crucifixion of the pascal lamb

Joseph Tabory, Bar-Ilan University

ABSTRACT

Justin Martyr depicted the paschal lamb as being offered in the form of a cross and he claimed that the manner in which the paschal lamb was slaughtered prefigred the crucifixion of Jesus. It is generally thought that Justin, who was born and raised in Samaria, was thinking of the Samaritan Passover, but the present day Samaritan practice would not justify his depiction of the lamb in the form of a cross. An examination of the rabbinic evidence, on the other hand, seems to show that in Jerusalem the Jewish paschal lamb was offered in a manner which resembled a crucifixion. The earlier Samaritan practice, it is suggested, followed the Jerusalem tradition but has since been changed. The rabbinic evidence could also provide an explanation for the crown of thorns with which Jesus was adored.

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

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:05 am

D. Instone Brewer, Traditions of the Rabbis, 2A, 146, argues that the tradition described in the article above is dated before the 70 CE.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6632
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:06 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:34 am
Scourging or flogging frequently accompanied crucifixion
I don't think that the defenders of minimal view of a historical Jesus have to assume necessarily a historical nucleus behind the Gospel stories of scourging or flogging by Roman soldiers, in order to defend the point that much blood was shed. It is to require too much Roman attention on a presumed messianist who did some disturb in Jerusalem without to derive the attention of Philo or Josephus. Some even argued that the Roman soldiers were too much disciplined to abandon themselves to tortures of that kind.
The point is that, if crucifixion is already in the picture (because a messianist historically got himself crucified and then was revered post mortem), it is not a stretch to eventually apply the scriptural passages about the shedding of blood to that crucifixion. Nobody has to suppose that the crucifixion came into the picture precisely as a bloody means of death; all that is required is that, once it is the presumed mode of death for our messianic figure, its bloodier aspects would be played up in order to match scripture. In other words, however bloody the average crucifixion may or may not have been, that aspect is not in any way a hindrance to HJ theories.
In addition, I am reading this about the phoenician god Mot-Aleyin:

I am Aleyin (son of) Baal… I am the lamb who is offered as expiatory sacrifice with pure wheat...

I am translating from : Dussaud René, Le sanctuaire et les dieux phéniciens des Ras-Shamra,R.H.R., N° 2-3, 1932.
Do you have a more specific reference to the text itself?
I should add the Psalm 22:16, also.
That verse is a minefield, with arguments being made that the "pierced" interpretation postdates early Christianity's fixation on the cross. I would want to investigate thoroughly before placing much weight upon it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6632
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:14 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:58 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:58 am
Yes, some people could have eccentrically imposed crucifixion upon such a scenario, but did they? It does not seem inevitable
Ben, you may be interested to read this article that answers just your question:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1454912?se ... b_contents

The crucifixion of the pascal lamb

Joseph Tabory, Bar-Ilan University

ABSTRACT

Justin Martyr depicted the paschal lamb as being offered in the form of a cross and he claimed that the manner in which the paschal lamb was slaughtered prefigred the crucifixion of Jesus. It is generally thought that Justin, who was born and raised in Samaria, was thinking of the Samaritan Passover, but the present day Samaritan practice would not justify his depiction of the lamb in the form of a cross. An examination of the rabbinic evidence, on the other hand, seems to show that in Jerusalem the Jewish paschal lamb was offered in a manner which resembled a crucifixion. The earlier Samaritan practice, it is suggested, followed the Jerusalem tradition but has since been changed. The rabbinic evidence could also provide an explanation for the crown of thorns with which Jesus was adored.

This is interesting, I admit, but surely it is still easier to accept the connection once crucifixion is already on the table than it is to suppose that the means of sacrificing the lamb suggested a crucified Messiah of its own accord. Again, the issue is not plausibility, but rather best explanation.
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:05 am
D. Instone Brewer, Traditions of the Rabbis, 2A, 146, argues that the tradition described in the article above is dated before the 70 CE.
Okay, but David Instone-Brewer also argues that "the earliest core of the censored tradition of Jesus' trial" in the Talmud "came from the actual court records from the time of Jesus which succeeding generations felt they could not change, despite the difficulties presented by the wording" in his article about Jesus' trial in Sanhedrin 43a.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:22 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:06 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:34 am
Scourging or flogging frequently accompanied crucifixion
I don't think that the defenders of minimal view of a historical Jesus have to assume necessarily a historical nucleus behind the Gospel stories of scourging or flogging by Roman soldiers, in order to defend the point that much blood was shed. It is to require too much Roman attention on a presumed messianist who did some disturb in Jerusalem without to derive the attention of Philo or Josephus. Some even argued that the Roman soldiers were too much disciplined to abandon themselves to tortures of that kind.
The point is that, if crucifixion is already in the picture (because a messianist historically got himself crucified and then was revered post mortem), it is not a stretch to eventually apply the scriptural passages about the shedding of blood to that crucifixion. Nobody has to suppose that the crucifixion came into the picture precisely as a bloody means of death; all that is required is that, once it is the presumed mode of death for our messianic figure, its bloodier aspects would be played up in order to match scripture. In other words, however bloody the average crucifixion may or may not have been, that aspect is not in any way a hindrance to HJ theories.

I continue to believe that Hebrews's and Revelation's silence about crucifixion, precisely when the topic is the power of the blood shed, is strong. It seems to be sufficiently obvious that the shedding of blood is a theological consequence of the view of Jesus as Lamb, not a theological consequence of the view of Jesus as crucified.

Even in 1 Corinthians, where Paul talks very a lot of crucifixion, he says somewhere that Christ is our Passover.
Do you have a more specific reference to the text itself?
at the moment, no.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6632
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:40 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:22 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:06 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:34 am
Scourging or flogging frequently accompanied crucifixion
I don't think that the defenders of minimal view of a historical Jesus have to assume necessarily a historical nucleus behind the Gospel stories of scourging or flogging by Roman soldiers, in order to defend the point that much blood was shed. It is to require too much Roman attention on a presumed messianist who did some disturb in Jerusalem without to derive the attention of Philo or Josephus. Some even argued that the Roman soldiers were too much disciplined to abandon themselves to tortures of that kind.
The point is that, if crucifixion is already in the picture (because a messianist historically got himself crucified and then was revered post mortem), it is not a stretch to eventually apply the scriptural passages about the shedding of blood to that crucifixion. Nobody has to suppose that the crucifixion came into the picture precisely as a bloody means of death; all that is required is that, once it is the presumed mode of death for our messianic figure, its bloodier aspects would be played up in order to match scripture. In other words, however bloody the average crucifixion may or may not have been, that aspect is not in any way a hindrance to HJ theories.

I continue to believe that Hebrews's and Revelation's silence about crucifixion, precisely when the topic is the power of the blood shed, is strong.
The silence in Revelation is strong only if you remove (at least part of) 11.8. I can see why the line at issue might be viewed as an interpolation, but it is important to bear in mind the necessity of this maneuver, since it is a common habit on this forum to forget which data are raw and which are manufactured.

There is no such silence in Hebrews. The sacrificial language is manifestly a metaphorical veneer laid over what the author has inherited from his forebears, and the epistle explicitly mentions the crucifixion twice (6.6; 12.2), the second time being an especially clear instance in which the metaphor has been peeled back to reveal the original tradition which the author is developing.
Even in 1 Corinthians, where Paul talks very a lot of crucifixion, he says somewhere that Christ is our Passover.
This is 1 Corinthians 5.7. And this verse merely emphasizes the point that a sacrificial interpretation may be laid over the original tradition, which is the crucifixion.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The only crucifixion mentioned in Hebrews (hence in Paul, also) is of the corpse of Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:51 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:40 am
There is no such silence in Hebrews.
The my point is not that Hebrews being silent about crucifixion implies that Jesus was not crucified for Hebrews (even if I am open to the idea that only the corpse was crucified). The my point is that in Hebrews (and in Revelation) the entire discourse about shedding of blood is a purely theological thing (as opposed to historical) that derives directly stricto sensu from the image of Jesus as "Lamb Immolated", not from the view of Jesus as crucified.


Obviously, under the historicist paradigm, you can argue that the shedding of blood derived from the "Jesus the Lamb Immolated", and "the Jesus Lamb Immolated" derived from a historical crucifixion. (that is equivalent to say that the blood derived not directly from crucifixion).

But I think that that the crucifixion derived:
  • from the "Jesus Lamb Immolated", or
  • from another not-historical reason (the Psalm 22:16, or the form of the sacrificial lamb, or the crucifixion of the corpse, etc).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply