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.
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 12:17 pm

The crucifixion could be introduced by Paul (or by a pseudo-Paul) as successfull attempt to disconnect the gentile Christians from the celebration of the Jewish Pascal Lamb in company with the Judeo-Christians. The crucifixion is not coincidentially the only way of death that doesn't produce a strong effusion of blood. Accordingly, a Crucified Jesus is the implicit negation of a Lamb Immolated. Just as a Jesus from Galilee is not a Jesus from the tribe of Judah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6631
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 2:54 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:10 pm
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)
Why is this difficult to explain? The Latin text appears to be corrupt here, as it has occidet twice:

Ascension of Isaiah 9.14a (Latin): Et princeps mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium Dei et occidet illum, et suspendet illum in ligno, et occidet nesciens qui sit.

The Slavonic (the Latin translation of which you gave above) has the killing only after the suspending, and the Ethiopic does not mention the actual killing at all. R. H. Charles calls the first killing in the Latin "an obvious interpolation."

Besides, crucifixion encompassed many different ways and means, as you ought to know from Carrier. Christians need not have known the exact details of Jesus' own execution; they would have filled those in from their own general knowledge of crucifixion and from their desire to line it up with the scriptures as best as possible.
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:17 pm
The crucifixion could be introduced by Paul (or by a pseudo-Paul) as successfull attempt to disconnect the gentile Christians from the celebration of the Jewish Pascal Lamb in company with the Judeo-Christians. The crucifixion is not coincidentially the only way of death that doesn't produce a strong effusion of blood. Accordingly, a Crucified Jesus is the implicit negation of a Lamb Immolated. Just as a Jesus from Galilee is not a Jesus from the tribe of Judah.
The same Paul who goes out of his way to call Jesus the Passover Lamb in 1 Corinthians 5.8? Again, this is eccentric. It is not a smooth theory of development.

Also, hanging by rope, stoning, and poisoning are all arguably less bloody than 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 8:36 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:54 pm
. R. H. Charles calls the first killing in the Latin "an obvious interpolation."
so you use the card interpolation only to remove what goes against the your dogmatic belief in the crucifixion as original belief of the Pillars.
Why the simply repetition of a same verb has to be evidence of a corruption? And in the interest of WHO? You are without arguments, here. Even: you don't recognize the Jewish custom of the hanging of the corpse, not of a living victim.
The same Paul who goes out of his way to call Jesus the Passover Lamb in 1 Corinthians 5.8? Again, this is eccentric. It is not a smooth theory of development.
I am simply re-valuing the view of a Paul (or: by a pseudo-Paul) who was the first to introduce the crucifixion.
Also, hanging by rope, stoning, and poisoning are all arguably less bloody than crucifixion.
you are ridiculizing the my argument. You want willingly that a historical crucifixion embarrassed who wanted a Lamb Immolated, but you don't want that a mythical crucifixion served to embarrass who wanted a Lamb Immolated. This is an evident contradiction by you.

Think about this: a crucified Jesus as a partial way to de-ethnicize Jesus by eclipsing the original Lamb Immolated. Just as the Galilee as opposed to the tribe of Judah.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6631
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 9:05 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:36 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:54 pm
. R. H. Charles calls the first killing in the Latin "an obvious interpolation."
so you use the card interpolation only to remove what goes against the your dogmatic belief in the crucifixion as original belief of the Pillars.
Why the simply repetition of a same verb has to be evidence of a corruption? And in the interest of WHO? You are without arguments, here.
Nonsense. Neither the Ethiopic nor the Slavonic texts say twice that the beloved was slain; only the Latin does this, and it is confusing, and it is pretty obviously a corruption. You evidently choose the Latin, corrupted or not, because you need the Latin. I, on the other hand, need nothing. If I thought that the Latin represented the original text here, I would happily run with it, because I simply do not care what the results or consequences are; all I care about is that I have followed them fairly.

ETA: In fact, I recently had a trajectory mostly worked out which would have functioned best if the Pillars either did not think of Jesus as crucified at all (best case scenario) or thought of him as having been slain and then crucified dead (second best scenario). I tried to make the first contingency work, but it did not, so I have at least temporarily abandoned it. I would personally love to have this passage from the Ascension of Isaiah on my side for the second contingency, since I have not yet completely abandoned it, but conscience forbids it. The part of your statement which I have highlighted is something I personally know to be patently false.
I am simply re-valuing the view of a Paul (or: by a pseudo-Paul) who was the first to introduce the crucifixion.
I have tried to make this sort of view work, but I have repeatedly failed. It is not the best option.
Also, hanging by rope, stoning, and poisoning are all arguably less bloody than crucifixion.
you are ridiculizing the my argument. You want willingly that a historical crucifixion embarrassed who wanted a Lamb Immolated, but you don't want that a mythical crucifixion served to embarrass who wanted a Lamb Immolated. This is an evident contradiction by you.
It is no such thing. A mythical crucifixion could very well have proven to be an embarrassment, just as easily as an historical crucifixion. But how did the mythical crucifixion get started in the first place? That is the question I am trying to answer, and every answer I come up with or read about depends upon singular, eccentric, unrepeatable events. This is not to say that such events do not happen; they certainly do; but, if I am able to explain things without having to rely upon them, I will rather do that, since by their very nature such events are unreliable as historical probabilities.
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 9:23 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:05 pm
It is no such thing. A mythical crucifixion could very well have proven to be an embarrassment, just as easily as an historical crucifixion.
I mean: embarrassing for some Christians (the Pillars) but not for others (possibly: gentile Christians who didn't have difficulty with a god who is humiliated, but though they had real difficulties to share with the Jews the Jewish cult of the pascal lamb). The great obstacle against who assumes that the crucifixion was in the original belief of the Pillars is represented surely by the Book of Revelation. Note also that clearly someone added the crucifixion in the pre-pauline Hymn to Philippians.
But how did the mythical crucifixion get started in the first place? That is the question I am trying to answer
The Psalm 22:16 may be an answer.
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 9:27 pm

We have evidence that even the date of the crucifixion was changed in some circles to dissociate it from the Jewish Passover.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6631
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 9:35 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:23 pm
The great obstacle against who assumes that the crucifixion was in the original belief of the Pillars is represented surely by the Book of Revelation.
It may well be the greatest obstacle. Unfortunately for my own previous attempts to view and use it in precisely that way, I am fairly convinced that Revelation is in substance a Jewish apocalypse which has, much like other Jewish works (such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and 4 Ezra) been Christianized (and also attributed to a venerable Christian figure, John, in the same way that Jewish apocalypses are attributed to venerable Jewish figures such as Daniel, Enoch, or Moses). As such, it is hard to predict which Jewish elements "should" have been replaced by which Christian elements.
Note also that clearly someone added the crucifixion in the pre-pauline Hymn to Philippians.
I personally suspect this to be the case, but you overstate the matter: it is not clear, but rather a viable hypothesis. It is, again unfortunately for my own attempts in this regard, not a good idea to press a poem or a hymn too far in the direction of an argument from silence. A crucifixion is a death; therefore, to describe it as a death is fine and not unexpected.
But how did the mythical crucifixion get started in the first place? That is the question I am trying to answer
The Psalm 22:16 may be an answer.
You may be right (provided that version of the text is early enough, an argument which I have not yet seen from you). Or maybe Wisdom of Solomon 2.20 is the starting point. Or maybe some cult who worshiped a "crucified" god(dess) like Inana who otherwise bore similarities to Ba'al. Are these possibilities the best explanation of the evidence?
We have evidence that even the date of the crucifixion was changed in some circles to dissociate it from the Jewish Passover.
I am aware of possible changes of date for the crucifixion. But remind me, where are they said to be intended to dissociate it from the Jewish Passover?
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 9:50 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:35 pm
I am aware of possible changes of date for the crucifixion. But remind me, where are they said to be intended to dissociate it from the Jewish Passover?
Instead of the 14 of Nisan, the resurrection was moved in the day after (day of the sun).
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 10:04 pm

Another relatively unexpected event if the crucifixion was believed by the Pillars: Hebrews and Revelation didn't need the Eucharist episode. Why did they need an allegory/prefiguration of the Lamb Immolated, when they had already the original Lamb Immolated?

Vice versa, the crucifixion of Jesus requires the Eucharist to replace the Jewish Passover (Lamb-based) with a new Gentile Passover.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6631
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 10:09 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:50 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:35 pm
I am aware of possible changes of date for the crucifixion. But remind me, where are they said to be intended to dissociate it from the Jewish Passover?
Instead of the 14 of Nisan, the resurrection was moved in the day after (day of the sun).
Ah, the Quartodeciman debate. But you have slightly misrepresented it. Asia celebrated Pascha as the anniversary of a day of the month (14 Nisan). Italy celebrated Easter always on a Sunday, the day of resurrection. (That is, there is no movement from one day to "the day after." There were two completely different systems for celebrating the most important Christian anniversary.) While the Quartodeciman practice seems bent upon preserving a link to the Jewish Passover, it is unclear to me whether the other practice was designed precisely to sever that connection; it may rather have been designed simply to preserve the meaning of Sunday as the "eighth day," the day of resurrection.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply