Why crucifixion?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7042
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:04 pm

John2 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:18 pm
Not to get you sidetracked, but I can't help wondering if Jesus' crucifixion should be isolated from the other things he did or that happened to him that were thought to be foretold by the OT. Did Christians also make up the other things about Jesus because the OT says things that seemed applicable to those things? Why a betrayal (etc.)?
I have also pointed out before that this making up of biographical details for Jesus from the Old Testament is still done today. I grew up thinking that one of the gospels mentioned Jesus' beard being plucked out, but no, the people in the religious circles around me were using Isaiah 50.6b. Also commonly mentioned without support from the New Testament was his lack of good looks, which comes from Isaiah 53.2b.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Joseph D. L.
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Joseph D. L. » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:04 pm

I don't see where the significance or the use of crucifixion can/will unlock anything of worth.

Could it have been an out growth of older symbols for rebirth?

An extension of ancient body language?

An historical event?

A motif popular in ancient novels at the time?

Some cosmic symbol?

As the ark/sail of the new covenant?

The answer can be yes to all of these. It isn't because there is a lack of meaning to the cross; but because there is too much meaning behind it that it would be like finding a needle in a stack of needles.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6489
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:31 am

neilgodfrey wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:23 pm
Perhaps I have missed where it has already been listed, but I'm thinking of Paul's virtual explanation of where he got the idea of a(n effectively) crucified christ from in Galatians 3:13. He cites a passage in Deuteronomy. The author of Acts similarly identified a hanging on a tree with a crucifixion.

(I also like to keep in mind that a crucified christ appears to have been a uniquely/originally Pauline concept. Other christs -- opposed by Paul -- were slain like lambs or even escaped death entirely.)
surely Mark wants that we think so, that the Judaizers denied and/or ignored even the crucifixion of Jesus.

Question: But was this a:
  • a Markan polemic against Pillars who ignored really a crucified Jesus (because Paul introduced first the crucifixion)
  • a Markan polemic against Pillars who denied the reality of the crucifixion (because they were Radical Docetists)
  • a Markan polemic against Pillars who accepted the crucifixion but nullified the its pro-gentile effect (the end of Torah)
I fear that we are condemned to not know.

What is sure is that Mark, at least from the Ascension episode onward, insists energically that Jesus was really crucified. He resembles Ignatius from this POV.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6489
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:48 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:48 pm
John2 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:18 pm
Not to get you sidetracked, but I can't help wondering if Jesus' crucifixion should be isolated from the other things he did or that happened to him that were thought to be foretold by the OT. Did Christians also make up the other things about Jesus because the OT says things that seemed applicable to those things? Why a betrayal (etc.)?
There can be no single answer for the "et cetera" part of the question. Each detail potentially follows its own path. But why a betrayal? The most obvious one is:

John 12.18: 18 "I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.'"

Psalm 41.9-10 (40.10-11 OG): 9 Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me. 10 But You, O Yahweh, be gracious to me and raise me up [ἀνάστησόν με], that I may repay them.

A betrayal followed by a "resurrection" (ἀνάστασις).
But Judas existed.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by neilgodfrey » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:45 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:31 am
neilgodfrey wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:23 pm
Perhaps I have missed where it has already been listed, but I'm thinking of Paul's virtual explanation of where he got the idea of a(n effectively) crucified christ from in Galatians 3:13. He cites a passage in Deuteronomy. The author of Acts similarly identified a hanging on a tree with a crucifixion.

(I also like to keep in mind that a crucified christ appears to have been a uniquely/originally Pauline concept. Other christs -- opposed by Paul -- were slain like lambs or even escaped death entirely.)
surely Mark wants that we think so, that the Judaizers denied and/or ignored even the crucifixion of Jesus.

Question: But was this a:
  • a Markan polemic against Pillars who ignored really a crucified Jesus (because Paul introduced first the crucifixion)
  • a Markan polemic against Pillars who denied the reality of the crucifixion (because they were Radical Docetists)
  • a Markan polemic against Pillars who accepted the crucifixion but nullified the its pro-gentile effect (the end of Torah)
I fear that we are condemned to not know.

What is sure is that Mark, at least from the Ascension episode onward, insists energically that Jesus was really crucified. He resembles Ignatius from this POV.
If Mark is in so many ways "allegorical" in some way then might not his crucifixion scenario also some sort of "allegorical" representation of the Pauline concept? Thinking of the Roman triumph procession being inverted in Jesus' procession to the cross.

As for alternative christs I'm thinking of, say, Revelation, in which the child was snatched up to heaven in order to avoid death on earth -- not a faux crucifixion as we might expect from docetic types.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Giuseppe
Posts: 6489
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:09 am

neilgodfrey wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:45 am
As for alternative christs I'm thinking of, say, Revelation, in which the child was snatched up to heaven in order to avoid death on earth -- not a faux crucifixion as we might expect from docetic types.
But in Revelation the Woman gave birth to the child in the lower heavens, not on earth. Then, after that the child was snatched up to upper heavens, the Woman goes to wilderness, to mean the earth (this earth) before the creation. After the celestial battle between the now adult Christ (with the archangel Michael) and the demons, the world is created, with Satan relegated to rule only the world, from now on. Having now the his powers only on this world, Satan could only persecute the Woman (who was left on this world in the wilderness). But the Woman is saved and therefore Satan can only persecute the Christians, now. How? In the form of a "beast raising from sea" (the Roman Empire) and of heresy/paganism.

Note that a distinction is necessary between the Moderate Docetism of the Gnostic type (Marcion, etc) and the Radical Docetism of the Jewish-Christian type. The former was a gentile phenomenon, while the latter was the early compromise between the first gospel and the veritable mythicist accusations by early mythicist anti-Christian Jews. Ignatius attacks Jewish-Christians for their Radical Docetism, not gentile Christians for their Moderate Docetism.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7042
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:14 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:04 pm
I don't see where the significance or the use of crucifixion can/will unlock anything of worth.

Could it have been an out growth of older symbols for rebirth?

An extension of ancient body language?

An historical event?

A motif popular in ancient novels at the time?

Some cosmic symbol?

As the ark/sail of the new covenant?

The answer can be yes to all of these. It isn't because there is a lack of meaning to the cross; but because there is too much meaning behind it that it would be like finding a needle in a stack of needles.
Well, then, but you and I live in different conceptual worlds, so it is understandable if the parameters and goals will differ, as well.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7042
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:20 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:48 am
But Judas existed.
:D
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6025
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:54 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:48 am
But Judas existed.
Acts as facts? ... Acts as facts?? ... Acts as facts??? ... Acts, as f'acts????

Giuseppe
Posts: 6489
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why crucifixion?

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:04 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:54 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:48 am
But Judas existed.
Acts as facts? ... Acts as facts?? ... Acts as facts??? ... Acts, as f'acts????
Read well the linked post: I mean Judas Barsabbas. Not Iskarioth.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply