Was the crucifixion not only romanized but also judaized?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 6997
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Was the crucifixion not only romanized but also judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:33 am

Marc Stèphane (alias Weil-Raynal) had already proposed that the crucifixion was romanized when the pauline "Mark" (inventor), writing in Rome, wanted to connect the servile supplicium par excellence with the original mythical crucifixion in outer space of Jesus the suffering Servant of God.

The same Stéphane had argued (see the link above) that the original myth assumed the crucifixion only of the corpse of Christ, as per a Jewish context. The evidence of this was particularly a version of the Ascension of Isaiah, one considered more original by Stéphane.

But what if Stephane was wrong just to consider this Jewish crucifixion of the corpse only of Christ as the more original version of the myth?

What if, just as the crucifixion was "romanized" by the Roman "Mark" writing for Roman Christians, the same crucifixion was "judaized" by Jewish-Christians writing their own gospels for Jews in Judea ?

This is surely expected under the mythicism, just as the legend of a Christ crucified under Janneus 100 years before "our" Christ, as per Toledot Jeschu.

Any country on the earth had the his own euhemerized version of the original "Christ crucified" of Paul and Pillars.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 6997
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the crucifixion not only romanized but also judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:51 am

I have read the article of David Oliver Smith, “Another Jesus, the Christology of Paul’s Opponents,” Journal of Higher Criticism, Vol 13, No. 2, pp 49-64, where he argues for the Pillars preaching only a coming Christ, not the same Christ of Paul.

The scenario is interesting, since it allows me to infer a Paul's belief that is not precisely the same mere outer-space version à la Carrier/Doherty, even if David Oliver Smith agrees with Carrier about the outer space location in Paul.

In what follows, anything that is written, it's me who has written it.

Paul preached a crucified Christ. But Paul denied that the crucifixion was a scandal and a folly.

I have already made clear in previous threads that this denial is out of embarassment, but not for a historical event: Paul was disturbed by the fact that some enemies (the Pillars in primis), confused deliberately (for mere goals of defamation) the celestial crucifixion of the Christ of Paul with an earthly crucifixion. The former was not embarrassing, for Paul (all the contrary, it was something of which he was prideful). The latter was embarrassing, for Paul.

But if there was no historical earthly crucifixion, who introduced the confusion between an earthly and a celestial crucifixion ?

Or better: who introduced the scandalous idea of an earthly crucifixion as a tool of comparison and consequent denigration of the celestial crucifixion of the Christ of Paul?

The answer may seem paradoxical: Paul himself!

Paul had a goal: to preach to Gentiles the same Gospel he had learned by the Pillars, against the will of the Pillars.

To that goal, Paul had to invent a story.

He invented that the Christ, predicted by the Pillars, descended in Sheol (="Capernaum") to find there John the Baptist.

After the descending in Sheol, the Christ ascended to earth, where he preached to the disciples of John for a short time, and then he was crucified by human forces (Romans and Jews) istigated by the demons, on earth.

After the his resurrection, the Christ Jesus of Paul appeared to disciples of John and he shows them the Cosmic Cross of Glory, where he was crucified really. By that vision, the Christ means to reveal that by only being crucified cosmically (cfr: "the world is crucified for me, and I for the world") the Christians can be saved. So the earthly crucifixion was only allegory of the celestial crucifixion, already for Paul. In other terms: it was only apparent. Where Christ suffered really was on the Cosmic Cross of Glory, in outer space.

After the apparition before the disciples, the Christ receives the name "Jesus" and he appears before Paul. The rest is known.

By this story, Paul had made the Pillars the unaware disciples of the Christ during the his short preaching on the earth.
The Pillars were virtually accused to have followed the Christ (masked as John the Baptist redivivus) without knowing really the true identity of their teacher. Having even abandoned him alone in the hands of who had to condemn him and kill him on the cross.

Now, place yourself from the side of the Pillars. How did they react against this Paul's invention ?

They accused Paul of preaching not only a crucified Christ, but even a crucified Christ on the earth, with all the embarrassment of the case: folly, scandal, suspicions of sediction, etc.

Hence Paul had to defend himself from the accusation of preaching a crucified Christ on the earth. An accusation raised by his same invented story.

Note a detail: John the Baptist was the historical teacher of the Pillars. By following him, according to Paul, they were following really "another Christ", even if they were following apparently the Christ in disguise of John redivivus.

Hence the nucleus of Acts about Paul introducing Jesus to disciples of John, "explaining them the baptism of Jesus" et similia, is true in a particular sense: he told them that their true master was really the Christ of Paul.

Basically, Paul euhemerized the his Christ (not a historical being) as John redivivus.

It is a partial euhemerization, since, even in his apparent form, a John redivivus is by definition a not-historical being (the dead people don't rise).

What "Mark" did, in face to an increasing post-Paul exaltation of John against Jesus, was merely to distinct John from Jesus, a distinction already implicit in Paul (afterall, for Paul the John redivivus was only a phantom who had to mask another phantom!) but made more explicit in Mark, for the greater glory of Paul.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply