Christ Staked --- kata tas graphas

[toejam]

I think if Paul had said "the celestial crucifixion was a stumbling block to Jews" then I think it's closed case in favor of the Carrier/Doherty hypothesis. But the fact that Paul never specifically describes the crucifixion as having happened in a celestial realm leaves Carrier's argument a bit thin IMO. If someone said to you "the boy's parents couldn't believe that he was suspended from school because he was always well behaved at home", that natural reading is that this event happened on Earth. But hey, if one wants to get technical, one could always appeal to the "possibility" that the suspension happened in The Sims.

It's not that a big of a stretch, really. Read Revelation, a pregnant woman has a child in outer space that's pursued by a dragon. The author of Hebrews sometimes seems to say that the crucifixion happened in outer space.

Yeah, it's not that big a stretch. When you play The Sims, you can see that children get suspended from school there too. So next time someone tells you their child was suspended, you shouldn't automatically assume they're talking about an Earthly child, right?

I don't see that the line in Hebrews tossed about by Carrier and Doherty supposedly referring to the crucifixion happening in outer space has much weight. Seems to me it's referring to where he is now (i.e. after his sufferings and exaltation). There are also way too many Earthly hints in Hebrews - "... since the children share flesh and blood, [Jesus] likewise shared the same things", "... in the days of his flesh...", "... was descended from Judah", etc. It even says specifically his blood was shed outside the city gate, a place where slaughtered animal carcasses were dumped. It think it's clear enough that the author of Hebrews thought Jesus had been here on Earth. But hey, everything's "possible", right?

[maryhelena]

We might have some examples of catastrophic messianism prior to the birth of Christianity, but I still find it highly unlikely that anyone who knew Jewish scripture that well would have chosen for their savior to die on a cross, instantly alienating potential Jewish converts. Paul's explanation, to me, comes off as more of a desperate rationalization for an event he acknowledges is hard for his fellow Jews to swallow. Better Jesus to have been stoned or thrown off a cliff than hung on a tree and cursed by Yahweh.

Agreed. This is a fundamental flaw in the Carrier-Doherty theory. Being hung on a tree, crucified, was viewed as a curse by god - and that is a literal tree not a celestial 'tree'.

Similarly, this is why I do not buy Carrier's argument that somehow Christianity is proof that someone could have concocted a celestial crucified messiah out of sheer imagination.

Well, I suppose anyone can concoct imaginary scenarios...the question is did the NT Paul do so. I don't think that is the case.

The NT Paul found value, salvation value, in a crucifixion. That, automatically, rules out a flesh and blood crucifixion. A flesh and blood crucifixion has no value whatsoever - on earth or in 'heaven'. However, a flesh and blood crucifixion can, because of it's non-value, be the catalyst for new thinking about how and where a 'crucifixion' could have value. In other words: Paul could simply be saying; OK, while the flesh and blood crucifixion was valueless we can learn from it. The Jerusalem above can reflect the crucifixion in the Jerusalem below but with opposite outcomes: Placing a crucifixion in a celestial heavenly context transforms it; transforms it by a process of intellectual philosophical/theological thinking, into a 'crucifixion' of salvation value. The NT Paul could have done this while simultaneously upholding a flesh and blood crucifixion as a historical event. Consequently, this debate over flesh and blood crucifixion vs celestial crucifixion - as though one had to choose between them - is nonsense.

<snip> The other scenario entails somebody opting for the method of execution least likely to convert their fellow Jews, even granting prior examples of catastrophic messianism (which, it should be noted, are all seemingly based on real people who got killed).

Real people that got killed.......indeed. Whether that real person was a nobody or a somebody, a flesh and blood crucifixion was a necessity for Paul's celestial 'crucifixion' theology/philosophy. However, the Carrier-Doherty theory runs with a historicized Pauline celestial christ figure crucified in the gospel story. i.e. it has two figurative non flesh and blood crucifixion stories. And yet Doherty wrote, years ago on his website:

"I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

So...even a literary figure of Jesus, even a literary figure made up re the Carrier-Doherty theory of a historicized Pauline celestial christ figure, could well be reflecting elements of a real flesh and blood crucifixion. Which means, of course, that the gospel literal figure of Jesus can be created without having first to go through the Carrier-Doherty Pauline scenario...

Carrier has himself said, in his book (don't have the quote to hand right now) that a political scenario suited the gospel story well. i.e. a political scenario could reflect a historical crucifixion. Carrier's problem seems to be the dating of manuscripts of the Pauline epistles as being earlier than the gospel manuscripts. However, if there was a flesh and blood crucifixion this flesh and blood crucifixion proceeded the writings of the Pauline epistles. Thereby calling into question the claims of the Carrier-Doherty theory regarding a historicizing of a Pauline celestial christ figure into the literary gospel Jesus figure.

The Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory, a theory that reads it's interpretation of the Pauline epistles into the gospel story, is just as questionable as the historicists position that reads its interpretation of the gospel story into the Pauline epistles.

Seemingly, the statement of the NT Paul that the crucifixion was a stumbling block for Jews - is even now, in the 21st century - a stumbling block for the Carrier-Doherty mythicist theory. Placing everything in a Pauline basket (and denying a flesh and blood component to the gospel story) not only undercuts the NT story - it has driven the ahistoricist position into a cul-de-sac.

[Solo]

I don't see any substance to this post. Jews wouldn't have expected their God or messiah to have been hanged. That's a huge hurdle to overcome. In fact I think its impossible to overcome because there is nothing in the Jewish writings. And I know all the early references. It's impossible to reconcile these ideas.

I am intrigued by the counter-argument from Richard Carrier:

That leaves the last and most common objection to this conclusion: that 'the Jews' would never conceive of a dying messiah ... much less a dying messiah who would become a celestial Lord, the conduit through whom one worshiped God. Of course, in its most naive formulation, this objection is self-refuting. If Jews would never conceive of it, Christianity would never have happened -- because Christianity obviously began within sectarian Judaism [refers back to previously-discussed evidence of this] ... So the very existence of Christianity itself refutes the objection.

He goes on to say:

Corned by these facts [of the diversity of Judaism and the religious innovations taking place in response to Roman rule of Judea], objections will concede that some Jews evidently were able to conceive of such a thing, but then insist that some compelling event must have precipitated so wild a break with Jewish thinking, and only the crucifixion of an actual historical man could have done such a thing. But that's a non sequitur. If early-first-century Jews could conceive of a dying messiah becoming a celestial Lord (and clearly they could), they could conceive of this being true of a celestial man as easily as a historical one. In other words, these objectors admit that some Jews could conceive of a historically crucified man becoming celestial Lord. But if the Jews could do that, they could conceive of a celestially crucified man becoming celestial Lord. Which negates this objection from the start.

He continues to argue that the gestalt of a dying-and-rising savior as part of a mystery cult was diffusing through "every other foreign culture" in the Roman Empire, "from the Syrian to the Persian to the Egyptian." That Judaism would have some of the same kind of syncretism is not surprising; it is in fact expected. Carrier appeals to the similarities between Christianity and the mystery cults, saying that it could not be a coincidence. He also points out that non-Christian Judaism in the era was already toying with this or that element that constituted the petri dish of Christianity, such as "the exaltation of the martyrs and the role of human sacrifice achieving salvation for the living" as well as "dying messiahs," again referring to the points of background enumerated at the start of the book.

I would finally mention that the many strong statements you've made on the board on the topic of first century Judaism, Stephan, make me concerned both that (a) you are more confident than the evidence allows you to be of your conclusions and (b) you take too much pride in your deep understanding of Judaism to the point that it could easily lead you to make large oversights, much like a pre-Copernican astronomer might reject out of hand any observations that contradict his already well-cemented working model.

I think we need to go at this with a finer tooth comb. Most scholars who are not Christians, or do not have some vested interest in the patristic narrative, would not see the cult of a crucified Messiah arising out of a Jerusalem sect. Actually I have yet to hear a Jewish scholar who would think of a Second Temple cult of a publicly executed "evildoer" led by a respected ascetic who allowed to be referred to himself as the "brother of the Lord", where "the Lord" referred to his executed kin, as anything other than a later Christian fantasy. Carrier ridiculed the Hegesippus tale of James' death. It just does not make sense that James would operate a clandestine church worshipping crucified Christ and no-one would know about it for cca 30 years (Jerusalem was a city of ~60,000 inhabitants at the time). And when it suddenly became known through a popular clamour for a crucified Saviour, and he refused to renounce his faith and the raison-d-etre of his church, he was immediately thrown down the parapet and/or clubbed to death. Whether it happened like that or not, the idea that a blasphemous cult could exist in Jerusalem of the Second Temple seems a non-starter to people who do not have Christian faith commitment.

What may have happened however, is that the James' cult did embrace and venerated a minor cult leader who was killed "unlawfully" in the precinct. Now, the formula of Acts 2:23 of "this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" seems to be saying two different things. It agrees with Paul that Jesus was delivered up according to God's plan, but it disagrees with him that Jesus was executed "under the law" and in that, removed the believers from the "curse of the law" (Gal 3:13). If "Jesus" was coincidence in names (with Joshua of Zechariah 3) then he could have been venerated by the Jacobite congregation as a martyr of the last days who was brutally done in by the temple priestly clique, but rehabilitated in heaven as per the midrashic reading of Zechariah. In that scenario, he would not have been thought of as a Messiah, but an intercessor for one.

This scenario would also clarify the puzzling insistence of the earliest gospel of Mark that Cephas and the Zebedees do not know (and do not get) the Pauline gospel of Jesus Christ, ie. do not get the news about his resurrection from the dead.

Best,
Jiri

[maryhelena]

I think if Paul had said "the celestial crucifixion was a stumbling block to Jews" then I think it's closed case in favor of the Carrier/Doherty hypothesis. But the fact that Paul never specifically describes the crucifixion as having happened in a celestial realm leaves Carrier's argument a bit thin IMO. If someone said to you "the boy's parents couldn't believe that he was suspended from school because he was always well behaved at home", that natural reading is that this event happened on Earth. But hey, if one wants to get technical, one could always appeal to the "possibility" that the suspension happened in The Sims.

It's not that a big of a stretch, really. Read Revelation, a pregnant woman has a child in outer space that's pursued by a dragon. The author of Hebrews sometimes seems to say that the crucifixion happened in outer space.

Yeah, it's not that big a stretch. When you play The Sims, you can see that children get suspended from school there too. So next time someone tells you their child was suspended, you shouldn't automatically assume they're talking about an Earthly child, right?

I don't see that the line in Hebrews tossed about by Carrier and Doherty supposedly referring to the crucifixion happening in outer space has much weight. Seems to me it's referring to where he is now (i.e. after his sufferings and exaltation). There are also way too many Earthly hints in Hebrews - "... since the children share flesh and blood, [Jesus] likewise shared the same things", "... in the days of his flesh...", "... was descended from Judah", etc. It even says specifically his blood was shed outside the city gate, a place where slaughtered animal carcasses were dumped. It think it's clear enough that the author of Hebrews thought Jesus had been here on Earth. But hey, everything's "possible", right?

But not probable....
It's one thing for some Jews to be able to put the the curse of a flesh and blood crucified messiah figure aside - by recognizing it's non-value and opting for a celestial/heavenly 'salvation' type of 'crucifixion. It's something else entirely for some Jews to actually create a crucified literary gospel figure from a celestial Pauline crucified christ figure. It's totally and utterly incongruous.

1) an actual flesh and blood crucifixion would be a historical reality that one either finds a way to overcome the 'stumbling block' aspect or one stumbles over it.
2) to actually create a literary 'stumbling block' scenario makes no logical sense whatsoever. Without that created literary crucifixion figure reflecting a historical flesh and blood crucifixion - that gospel crucifixion is meaningless as a 'stumbling block.
3) only a flesh and blood crucifixion has the potential to be a stumbling block for Jews.

[Blood]

I think if Paul had said "the celestial crucifixion was a stumbling block to Jews" then I think it's closed case in favor of the Carrier/Doherty hypothesis. But the fact that Paul never specifically describes the crucifixion as having happened in a celestial realm leaves Carrier's argument a bit thin IMO. If someone said to you "the boy's parents couldn't believe that he was suspended from school because he was always well behaved at home", that natural reading is that this event happened on Earth. But hey, if one wants to get technical, one could always appeal to the "possibility" that the suspension happened in The Sims.

It's not that a big of a stretch, really. Read Revelation, a pregnant woman has a child in outer space that's pursued by a dragon. The author of Hebrews sometimes seems to say that the crucifixion happened in outer space.

Yeah, it's not that big a stretch. When you play The Sims, you can see that children get suspended from school there too. So next time someone tells you their child was suspended, you shouldn't automatically assume they're talking about an Earthly child, right?

If they were mystagogues steeped in theological and astrological exegesis, no.