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

[Ben C. Smith]

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).

And my suggestion is that the derivation of the crucifixion from those kinds of considerations comes across a bit like a "just so" story: it was eccentric, and it happened once, and here we are. Deriving the sacrifice from a crucifixion, on the other hand, seems like a more natural and expected development, given that the crucifixion at issue would have disappointed people's hopes and dreams. That kind of disappointment feels to me like a more powerful engine for interpretation than merely finding a few hidden clues in the scriptures and dreaming up a crucified Messiah from them.

[Giuseppe]

What I am going to see is that there is some degree of "conflict" between crucifixion and immolation. Especially in Revelation this "conflict" is more visible. Secondarily, in Hebrews. And in Romans, Paul mentions only one time the cross. Zero times in 1 Thessalonicians.

This is not say that they have to be someway mutually exclusive, but quasi.

[Ben C. Smith]

Sure, there is "conflict" between sacrifice and crucifixion. But the directional arrow points more easily from crucifixion to sacrifice, and not vice versa. Given crucifixion, there is an entire corpus of Jewish scriptures to make it sacrificial; given sacrifice, there are far fewer resources to turn it into a crucifixion.

[Giuseppe]

Deriving the sacrifice from a crucifixion, on the other hand, seems like a more natural and expected development

but the my objection to this "natural development" is that the shedding of blood, considered uniquely in theological terms (pace what the earthly crucifixions implied in terms of blood shed) descends totally and uniquely from the view of Jesus as Lamb immolated.

At contrary, the crucifixion, considered uniquely in theological terms (pace what the earthly crucifixions implied in terms of blood shed) seems to be introduced (sic) to deny precisely the shedding of so much blood.

I don't say that this was the case. But I limit myself to note the difference:

Lamb immolated -----> much blood shed -----> total purification (and strong need of it)

Crucifixion ------> few blood shed -----> no need of purification.


Is it a false dichotomy? Is it a real difference? I don't know....

[Ben C. Smith]

Deriving the sacrifice from a crucifixion, on the other hand, seems like a more natural and expected development

but the my objection to this "natural development" is that the shedding of blood, considered uniquely in theological terms (pace what the earthly crucifixions implied in terms of blood shed) descends totally and uniquely from the view of Jesus as Lamb immolated.

At contrary, the crucifixion, considered uniquely in theological terms (pace what the earthly crucifixions implied in terms of blood shed) seems to be introduced (sic) to deny precisely the shedding of so much blood.

I don't say that this was the case. But I limit myself to note the difference:

Lamb immolated -----> much blood shed -----> total purification (and strong need of it)

Crucifixion ------> few blood shed -----> no need of purification.

Is it a false dicothomy? Is it a real difference? I don't know....

Yes, the idea of the shedding of blood comes from the notion of sacrifice. Granted. But that is the point. It comes into play only when sacrifice does. And when did sacrifice come into play? It is not difficult to derive the sacrifice from the need to rationalize the crucifixion. Why did Jesus have to die? Because he was, in fact, the fulfillment of the sacrificial system. The development goes:

Crucifixion -> need to rationalize it -> sacrifice -> shedding of blood.

[Giuseppe]

Attention. The crucifixion, in virtue of the his corollary (i.e.: few blood shed ergo no purification ergo no need of a purification) may be introduced after, in a second moment, just to contrast the corollary of the immolation (i.e.: much blood ergo much purification ergo need of one) . In this sense the crucifixion could be a "scandal" for the same believers in the Jesus Lamb Immolated: it denied the shedding of so much blood purifier. It denied dangerously the need of a so total purification. It denied the solution and eo ipso also the problem. There was no so great sin in need of a so great purification as may be the immolation of a lamb.

Quid prodest?

[Ben C. Smith]

Attention. The crucifixion, in virtue of the his corollary (i.e.: few blood shed ergo no purification ergo no need of a purification) may be introduced after, in a second moment, just to contrast the corollary of the immolation (i.e.: much blood ergo much purification ergo need of one) . In this sense the crucifixion could be a "scandal" for the same believers in the Jesus Lamb Immolated: it denied the shedding of so much blood purifier. It denied dangerously the need of a so total purification. It denied the solution and eo ipso also the problem. There was no so great sin in need of a so great purification as may be the immolation of a lamb.

See? More eccentricity. Nothing obvious or inevitable. A "just so" story.

[Giuseppe]

To answer to my own question: who had any interest to deny the existence of the problem (the sins are many because the Torah is not observed continually) by denying the presumed solution (the death of Jesus does cause a shedding of so much blood purifier) by introducing the cross?

Simple: who denied that the not observance of the Torah caused so much sins in need of a their total purification.

The best candidate for the role of who wanted to minimize the weight of the torah (as continue generator of sins - insofar it was not observed in the its many prescriptions - and therefore of the need of an absolute purification of them by the belief in the Lamb Immolated) was just Paul.

[Giuseppe]

Note also that in Matthew the people who want the immolation of the Lamb Jesus insofar they want to be purified by the his much blood shed, are just... ...the sinedrites!

Are the Pillars the real target there?

[Giuseppe]

Note also the historicist difficulty to explain the following passage where only the corpse of Jesus is meant apparently as crucified :

And the prince of this world will lay his hand on the Son of God, and he will kill him, and he will hang him on the tree, and will kill him, not knowing who he is.

Et princeps mundi illius propter filium ejus extendet manus suas in eum et suspendent illum in ligno, et occidet eum nesciens qui sit.

(Ascension of Isaiah, 9:14)