The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

[neilgodfrey]

People only write in order to create what's not there.

I don't think so. There are many reasons for writing and the "intent" of a text is judged from the style, the vocabulary, the allusions, known external factors including the person of the author.

[neilgodfrey]

I think we have to assume that the death by stauros was already there with Paul, and that it could only be turned into something "bigger and better" after that.

Certainly. I didn't mean to suggest that Paul invented the idea of a crucified Christ. Not at all.

[Sinouhe]

Concerning the potentiel use of psalm 22:17 for the crucifixion of Jesus, i would add that Mark used this psalm massively to build the passion narrative :

- mockery
- The nodding heads
- the division of the clothes
- casting lots
- let him deliver him
- my God why have you forsaken me
- The conversion of the Gentiles at the end of the psalm and the centurion.

Everything leads us to believe that Mark built his story on the basis of this psalm, which I remind you, in the first century contained the verse in Hebrew: "my feet and my hands pierced". It can be a scribe's mistake but it doesn't matter because it was translated into Greek in the same way. And Mark use the greek Bible for his gospel.

It would be very surprising if Mark based his whole story on this psalm without alluding to the verse 17.

We know that Mark does not indicate that he is making pesharim in his gospel, leaving the reader to find out for themselves (or nor).

I understand it cannot be certain and of course i could be wrong, but we have such a cluster of references to the Psalm 22, it seems to me that the crucifixion is part of it.

And if the epistle of Barnabas predates Mark as I think it does, then we have another independent attestation that the passion of Jesus was already read in light of this psalm before Mark.

[neilgodfrey]

Everything leads us to believe that Mark built his story on the basis of this psalm, which I remind you, in the first century contained the verse in Hebrew: "my feet and my hands pierced". It can be a scribe's mistake but it doesn't matter because it was translated into Greek in the same way. And Mark use the greek Bible for his gospel.

The question that I have in my mind relates to the doubts raised in the scholarly literature about the meaning of the word that we translate as "pierced" or "percé". Is that the correct translation for the Hebrew word ‮יראב‬ or the Greek word ὤρυξαν? Other meanings have been suggested.

see, e.g., https://sci-hub.se/10.1163/15685330-12341438 ; https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/3268463 ; https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/s0035869x0007492x

I understand it cannot be certain and of course i could be wrong, but we have such a cluster of references to the Psalm 22, it seems to me that the crucifixion is part of it.

And if the epistle of Barnabas predates Mark as I think it does, then we have another independent attestation that the passion of Jesus was already read in light of this psalm before Mark.

Yes, no doubt. Psalm 22 surely was used as a source for the crucifixion accounts.

The only question I have is whether verse 17 of that Psalm -- which we have translated as a "piercing" of hands and feet -- was read as "piercing hands and feet" in the earliest narratives. Definitely, other verses in the Psalm were used to describe the crucifixion.

The Psalm is said to be a psalm of David. If it was understood as a description of David's experience then is it likely that the psalm makes a clear reference to being crucified? David was never crucified. But the other experiences of David and that we read in Psalm 22 -- being insulted, hunted to the point of death -- these were likely experiences of David that we read about in the psalm and that could be transferred to Jesus' crucifixion.

And later Christians did translate the Greek word to mean "pierced". But whether the first accounts of the crucifixion read verse 17 that way is open for debate and has long been debated in the scholarly literature.

[Sinouhe]

The question that I have in my mind relates to the doubts raised in the scholarly literature about the meaning of the word that we translate as "pierced" or "percé". Is that the correct translation for the Hebrew word ‮יראב‬ or the Greek word ὤρυξαν? Other meanings have been suggested.
see, e.g., https://sci-hub.se/10.1163/15685330-12341438 ; https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/3268463 ; https://sci-hub.se/10.1017/s0035869x0007492x

I think you are right that the original meaning of the verse is "like a lion...". But as you know, the word in Hebrew is very close to the word "pierced", which could have misled some scribes. This would explain why we find the form "pierced" in the Greek translation or in the Nahal Hever manuscript.

The Psalm is said to be a psalm of David. If it was understood as a description of David's experience then is it likely that the psalm makes a clear reference to being crucified? David was never crucified. But the other experiences of David and that we read in Psalm 22 -- being insulted, hunted to the point of death -- these were likely experiences of David that we read about in the psalm and that could be transferred to Jesus' crucifixion.
And later Christians did translate the Greek word to mean "pierced". But whether the first accounts of the crucifixion read verse 17 that way is open for debate and has long been debated in the scholarly literature.

Same conclusion here. It is useful to point out that although the psalms were texts that were supposed to reflect events in the life of David, they were also read as prophetic texts by the Qumran sect long before the Christians. This implies that for them, certain psalms or verses concerned future events and not necessarily the past life of David. I am thinking in particular of psalm 110 but it concerned the psalms in general.

[MrMacSon]

fwiw, on/regarding 'pieced'

In James [1 Apocalypse of James] it is said that Jesus’ crucifixion is inflicted upon the “figure of the archons.” It is thus through the seizing of a son of light by the cosmic powers that their ruler and figure is pierced. This tradition of dark powers consuming light and being fixed or bound as a result is a prominent theme in Manichaean tradition. A few examples of this motif within Manichaeism are particularly illuminating for the conceptual background of James ...

These [Manichean] sources [ie. Manichaean texts] reflect the mythological thought world that is drawn upon by the author of James. The correlation between monsters or dragons who are defeated through the sacrifice of a divine representative is one which is expressed in James through the idea that Jesus’ crucifixion has effectively crucified the “figure of the archons.” This crucified ‘figure’ of the zodiacal powers, born of deficient Wisdom, pierced through the sacrifice of a ‘son of light,’ dwelling at the center of the world and in the highest sphere of the cosmic realm, the form of whose son Jesus takes during his descent, fits the picture of a dragon or serpent based on the parallel traditions noted above.

... Within the 1 Apocalypse of James, then, is an expression of the tradition found in the aforementioned sources in which the capture of the light is required in order to overcome the serpentine forces of darkness. The crucifixion of the dragon by Jesus may be viewed as recapitulating the primordial binding or piercing of the chaos dragon.59 In James this process is further repeated by other sons of light.

59 cf. Job 26:13: “By his spirit, the sky became fair. His hand has pierced the pole/fleeing serpent.”
On different versions of the primordial sea monster myth see Gunkel 1895; Wakeman 1973. On the recapitulation of this myth in later Judaism see Fishbane 2003, 282; Liebes 1993, 16–17. The recapitulation of the primordial conquering of volatile chaos is expressed in the alchemical tradition of “Abraham Eleazar the Jew,” in the image of the crucified serpent, represented by Moses’ staff. For the self-proclaimed astrologer the nailing or fixing of the serpent to a cross and the alchemical practices related to the ‘spirit of Python’ have the power to subdue the whole world. See Patai 1994, 238–57, esp. 246, cf. 573 n. 17.

Franklin Trammell, 'The God of Jerusalem as the Pole Dragon: The Conceptual Background of the Cosmic Axis in James' in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008, April DeConick, ed., Brill, 2009, p.337f.

Orthodox Christians probably wouldn't have seen Jesus as a dragon or serpent (or as an ordinary archon), but, as those excerpts show, there were traditions or mythological thought looking at these concepts, including the piecing of the ruler of the cosmic powers, and, if orthodox Christianity arose out of such mythological thought or traditions, then tropes such as this may have contributed. As might Job 26:13, especially if the canonical Jesus' crucifixion, in part, at least, represents the crucifixion of Jewish failures (eg. events that lead to the First Roman-Jewish War and the Fall of the Temple and maybe more) ie. Jesus' crucifixion might represent a number of things

eta

William R. Schoedel writes (op. cit., p. 260):

" The designation of James as "James the Just" [in 1 Apocalypse of James] (32,2-3; cf. 43,19) indicates contact with 'Jewish Christian' tradition "

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/a ... ames1.html

eta2 The start of the next passage in Trammell's article:

The tradition of the crucified pole dragon is not explicated fully by the author of James due to his more prominent agenda which is to identify the twelve zodiacal powers who establish the axis with the twelve disciples. This correspondence between the apostles and the zodiacal powers has been emphasized over the underlying structure of the Hebrew God as the pole dragon ... In the Tchacos version of James, it is the twelve archons, corresponding to the apostles, through which the axis of powers blocking the soul’s ascension is established ...

[neilgodfrey]

Orthodox Christians probably wouldn't have seen Jesus as a dragon or serpent (or as an ordinary archon), but, as those excerpts show, there were traditions or mythological thought looking at these concepts, including the piecing of the ruler of the cosmic powers, and, if orthodox Christianity arose out of such mythological thought or traditions, then tropes such as this may have contributed. As might Job 26:13, especially if the canonical Jesus' crucifixion, in part, at least, represents the crucifixion of Jewish failures (eg. events that lead to the First Roman-Jewish War and the Fall of the Temple and maybe more) ie. Jesus' crucifixion might represent a number of things

I think we have to accept that the evidence for an account of the crucifixion based on the Psalms and other Jewish scriptures was a relatively late development. As far as I can tell the focus on Ps 22:17 and the piercing idea appears with Justin. Up until Marcion the crucifixion encapsulated other ideas and lacked any allusions to Jewish Scriptures. The Jewish Scripture wrapping of the crucifixion is best understood as a reaction against the first narrative on the scene, one that came from Marcionite quarters. Until then, the crucifixion appears to have been as much a philosophical as theological concept that was capable of germinating all sorts of meanings, purposes, etc. With that kind of origin of the idea we can understand the development eventually of all sorts of wonderful locations and functions of the crucifixion. The attempt to capture the crucifixion within the text of Jewish Scriptures and historicize it was one of the reactions to Marcionism. If that kind of crucifixion idea was there from the start it is really very difficult to explain the gnostic and Manichean adaptations of the idea.

[MrMacSon]

I think we have to accept that the evidence for an account of the crucifixion based on the Psalms and other Jewish scriptures was a relatively late development. As far as I can tell the focus on Ps 22:17 and the piercing idea appears with Justin. Up until Marcion the crucifixion encapsulated other ideas and lacked any allusions to Jewish Scriptures. The Jewish Scripture wrapping of the crucifixion is best understood as a reaction against the first narrative on the scene, one that came from Marcionite quarters. Until then, the crucifixion appears to have been as much a philosophical as theological concept that was capable of germinating all sorts of meanings, purposes, etc. With that kind of origin of the idea we can understand the development eventually of all sorts of wonderful locations and functions of the crucifixion. The attempt to capture the crucifixion within the text of Jewish Scriptures and historicize it was one of the reactions to Marcionism. If that kind of crucifixion idea was there from the start it is really very difficult to explain the gnostic and Manichean adaptations of the idea.

Since writing that post above (ie. the one you've responded to), I've delved into another article in that publication, one by April DeConick which, albeit in reference to some Gnostic theology and associated texts, also cites a Psalm in relation to crucifixion, though a different one:

Jesus’ death is understood as the moment when the old axis mundi was replaced. Jesus is installed as the new cosmic pole, a great beam of light that reaches from the very depth of the earth up through the heavens. As he was dying on 'the cross,' he ascends the pole and shakes up all the Powers, shaking even the earth [Psalm 1:3]. Then Jesus turns the Zodiac and the planets into new positions so that the Archons are disoriented and the astrologers cannot read the skies [[Psalm 1:18]. The Archons become confused, wandering around the skies in error, unable to understand the new cosmic orientation or their own paths in the sphere [Psalm 1:21].

Why has Jesus done this? “I have turned their paths,” he says, “for the salvation of all souls. Really truly I say to you, unless I had turned their paths, a multitude of souls would have been destroyed . . . Because of this, I have turned their paths so that they are confused and agitated, and give up the power which is in cosmic matter, which they make into souls, so that those who will be saved with all the power are purified quickly and ascend, and those who will not be saved are quickly dissolved” [Psalm 1:23].

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

April DeConick 'Apostles as Archons: The Fight for Authority and the Emergence of Gnosticism in the Tchacos Codex and Other Early Christian Literature', pp.243ff, in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008, April DeConick, ed., Brill, 2009, pp.286-7.

and

... The most powerful redeemer god in the Gnostic Christian systems is Jesus, whose advent and death result in a physical restructuring of the cosmos. The story of his birth star allowed for the theory to take root that a new star was born which replaced the old axis mundi, a bright day star around which the cosmos now revolved.

The death of Jesus was interpreted through Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 2:6–8, Ephesians 6:12, and Colossians 2:14–15, as the vanquishing of the cosmic powers. Jesus’ crucifixion was their own. This meant, for Christians, that the cosmic archons and powers no longer controlled their fate, but Jesus did. After death, their souls would be able to ascend from Hades up through the cosmos along the axis mundi, unhindered by the archons. John 10:7, “I am the door,” became a literal reality. The saved would enter the Pleroma through a new door that had opened up out of the heavens—Jesus himself.
...< . . snip . . >
... What must have been a widely circulating tradition—that the twelve apostles stood in for the Zodiac—is preserved in the Homilies: “The Lord had twelve apostles, bearing the number of the twelve months of the sun” [Hom 2:23] This sort of speculation may be as early as the first century in Christianity, and occurred as well in Judaism.32 The book of Revelation may be our earliest Christian reference to this correspondence when it describes Jerusalem as it descends down through the heavens. Upon the twelve “foundations” of the outer wall encircling the city are inscribed the twelve names of the apostles [Rev 21:10-14] [pp.250-1]

32 On the Zodiac in Judaism, see Esth. Rabba 7.11; Num. Rabba 14.18; Pesiq. Rab. 20, 27–28; Sukenik 1934, 33–35; Dothan 1962, 153–154; Kraeling 1956, 42; Charlesworth 1977, 183–200.

In relation to your last sentence, ie. re "gnostic and Manichean adaptations of the idea [of crucifixion]", I wonder if these more cosmic notions might have preceded the decidedly more human accounts.

[Sinouhe]

Orthodox Christians probably wouldn't have seen Jesus as a dragon or serpent (or as an ordinary archon), but, as those excerpts show, there were traditions or mythological thought looking at these concepts, including the piecing of the ruler of the cosmic powers, and, if orthodox Christianity arose out of such mythological thought or traditions, then tropes such as this may have contributed. As might Job 26:13, especially if the canonical Jesus' crucifixion, in part, at least, represents the crucifixion of Jewish failures (eg. events that lead to the First Roman-Jewish War and the Fall of the Temple and maybe more) ie. Jesus' crucifixion might represent a number of things

I think we have to accept that the evidence for an account of the crucifixion based on the Psalms and other Jewish scriptures was a relatively late development. As far as I can tell the focus on Ps 22:17 and the piercing idea appears with Justin. Up until Marcion the crucifixion encapsulated other ideas and lacked any allusions to Jewish Scriptures. The Jewish Scripture wrapping of the crucifixion is best understood as a reaction against the first narrative on the scene, one that came from Marcionite quarters. Until then, the crucifixion appears to have been as much a philosophical as theological concept that was capable of germinating all sorts of meanings, purposes, etc. With that kind of origin of the idea we can understand the development eventually of all sorts of wonderful locations and functions of the crucifixion. The attempt to capture the crucifixion within the text of Jewish Scriptures and historicize it was one of the reactions to Marcionism. If that kind of crucifixion idea was there from the start it is really very difficult to explain the gnostic and Manichean adaptations of the idea.

I'm not sure to understand. Do you think it was Marcion (or Marcionites) who wrote the first narrative account of the passion before Mark or do you think it predates Marcion and Mark ?

If you think it was Marcion (or Marcionites) who wrote the first passion narrative and that Mark wraps the narrative with Jewish scriptures, why the whole GMarcion also contains many pesharim from the Old Testament ?
Even direct allusions to Psalm 22 for the passion. The entire gospel of Marcion is filled with midrash and pesharim of the scriptures.
How to explain it ?

• 33 And when they were come to the place, which is called the Skull,
  there they crucified him, and the malefactors,
  one on the right hand, and the other on the left (Isaiah 53:12).

• 35 And the people stood beholding.
  And the rulers also with them scoffed at him (Psalm 22:8) saying,
  Others he saved; let him save himself,
  if this is Christ, the chosen of God (psalm 22:9)
  36 And the soldiers also mocked him (psalm 22:8), coming to him,
  and offering him vinegar, (Amos 2:1 or Psalm 66:22) and saying,
  37 If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself.

[neilgodfrey]

Since writing that post above (ie. the one you've responded to), I've delved into another article in that publication, one by April DeConick which, albeit in reference to some Gnostic theology and associated texts, also cites a Psalm in relation to crucifixion, though a different one:

The Psalm citations in the passage you quoted look somewhat debatable. They are surely far removed from the closely interwoven links to the Psalms that we see in the canonical gospel narratives of the crucifixion.

In relation to your last sentence, ie. re "gnostic and Manichean adaptations of the idea [of crucifixion]", I wonder if these more cosmic notions might have preceded the decidedly more human accounts.

The Manichean cosmology was no earlier than the third century. The gnostic ideas we find from the second and third centuries had their origins (presumably in simpler forms) much earlier as Birger Pearson has shown. The greater emphasis on realism (following Markus Vinzent here) was a direct reaction to the first crucifixion narrative that was produced by Marcion.