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.