The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

[mlinssen]

Staking wasn't new, but perhaps Justin helped shape or even create the idea of a † shaped crucifixion and the lore / imagery etc that has long been part of with that.

Doesn't Justin -- or the character of Justin in our sources -- seem to be there to justify what is believed, what he/his audience have inherited/heard? I'm sure Marcion also spoke of a crucified Jesus.

That would be odd, assuming that Marcion invented the story.
It's evident that Sweet Jus is trying hard to do something - some would call it "convincing". If it was believed what he says, why would he say it?
Does he e.g. argue anywhere for Jesus being male, or Mary being female?

People only write in order to create what's not there. Why does he bend over backwards in order to argue for a cross shape? Because none of that is in the texts - and as there is no oral tradition of anything, then how would that cross have needed to come into existence?

I'm sure they could have inserted the words into the texts, that would have saved them a lot of apologetics - so the fact that the latter is there can only mean that the former was already a very final product by the time that the latter got written.
Propaganda always comes after the facts, it never precedes it. It does create new facts, yes, and those become the new truths.
So how can we have both?

[mlinssen]

By associating Psalm 22 with Isaiah 53, they imagined that Jesus was crucified on a wooden stake as Paul refers to it in Galatians :

• Galatians 3
  13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written:
  “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

To imagine that Christians have associated Psalm 22 with Isaiah 53 would be far-fetched ???

That may be so, but the problem I have with that explanation is that Paul, from memory, nowhere links the piercing of hands and feet as per Psalm 22 with Jesus. We don't even see that connection in our canonical gospels. A few key lines from Psalm 22 are alluded to in the gospels but not verse 17. Paul comes to the idea of crucifixion via "wood" in Genesis 22 and the curse of Deuteronomy. Ps 22:17 may be translated in other ways that "pierced my hands and feet": it could be some sort of metaphor for reducing the victim to helplessness in every way. The first time we see "pierced my hands and feet" in connection with the crucifixion is with Justin and (iir) the Gospel of Peter.

When we look for theories to explain puzzles we are guided by "what if" ideas that are already in our head and seeing which idea we bring to the exercise can be made to fit the data. A form of confirmation bias for our pet theories, in other words. That's what guides the often highly creative interpretations of the various scriptures. So why an interest in looking for a crucifixion as opposed to, say, having the messiah's throat cut or having him speared or dying by any other method that sheds blood?

I'm not knee-deep into Paul, but is it possible that his Jesus just died, period? And that Paul "had a vision" like any other regularly accepted psychic phenomenon from the dead?

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. Ask maryhelena if you're interested in throat slitting, that's what happened to her Hasmonean triple

[neilgodfrey]

I have no problem with Jesus/Christ being connected to the scriptures along with his crucifixion.... but why not "connected to the scriptures along with his throat slit like a sacrificial lamb?"

Do we have a "prophetic" verse in the scriptures that links the messiah and his throat slit or another type of execution ? I could be wrong, but the scripture that most closely resembles a killing in a « prophetic » context, apart from Isaiah 53, would be Psalm 22.

I meant "having throat slit" as a way of suggesting any other alternative. The problems with the original text of Ps. 22:17 have been alluded to -- along with that piercing business not being witnessed until Justin. Does not the evidence point to the actual reading of our translated "pierced my hands and feet" and to its interpretation as an indicator of crucifixion point to nothing earlier than Justin?

[Sinouhe]

I have no problem with Jesus/Christ being connected to the scriptures along with his crucifixion.... but why not "connected to the scriptures along with his throat slit like a sacrificial lamb?"

Do we have a "prophetic" verse in the scriptures that links the messiah and his throat slit or another type of execution ? I could be wrong, but the scripture that most closely resembles a killing in a « prophetic » context, apart from Isaiah 53, would be Psalm 22.

I meant "having throat slit" as a way of suggesting any other alternative. The problems with the original text of Ps. 22:17 have been alluded to -- along with that piercing business not being witnessed until Justin. Does not the evidence point to the actual reading of our translated "pierced my hands and feet" and to its interpretation as an indicator of crucifixion point to nothing earlier than Justin?

We have a First century manuscript of Psalm 22:17 now with hands and feet pierced :

http://dssenglishbible.com/scrollnhpsalms.htm#_ftn1

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... text=byusq

[Sinouhe]

@Neil

The obsession in the christians texts with Psalm 22 seems to indicate that this psalm was particularly read and recited to describe his death.

After that there is a certain amount of uncertainty. But I do not see which « prophetic » verse in the whole Tanakh could indicate how the Messiah will be put to death except Isaiah 53 which does not mention the way he is killed or Psalm 22 which speaks of pierced feet and hands.

Do you have another verse in mind from the prophetic writings?

[neilgodfrey]

What I am wondering now as a possible answer -- and this comes as a result of having just read Friedlander's two articles on the "Melchizedekites" of pre-Christian times (thanks for alerting me to Friedlander, Giuseppe) and Birger Pearson's discussion of pre-Christian Jewish "Gnosticism" -- and all of this in the context of your (Sinhoue) studies into the whole Enoch and Enochian Parables ideas -- .... so I tried to return to basics:

Paul, even if the passage is second century, speaks of crucifixion as a "folly" as opposed to "wisdom", and as a "weakness" as opposed to "power" -- that connotes a syzygy, polar opposites; then there's the Philippian hymn: we are again talking about polar extremes, from god to human, and the phrase "even the death of the cross", not just a death, but the death by crucifixion -- that line appears to be added as an afterthought that upsets an otherwise nice poetic rhythm.

And our canonical book of Hebrews explicitly notes that the crucifixion is "a shame" -- and that concept is presented in the context of Jesus being entirely and in every (other) way utterly glorious.

Tentative conclusion:

Was the crucifixion idea a secondary development introduced to stress some sort of polar opposite of the highest imaginable glory (which is god-head and all the attributes that go with being God). Was the whole point of crucifixion per se (as distinct from any other form of death) introduced because of its associations with utter degradation. That is to say, Jesus did not just "die", oh no, but he died the worst and most disgraceful and shameful type of death, a death normally reserved for slaves and the most reprobate persons, the utter rebels.

Now if that were the case, we have an explanation for Hebrews speaking of "the shame" of the crucifixion, of "Paul" setting the crucifixion as a "folly" in opposition to wisdom, and as a weakness at the opposite end of power.

I think this notion -- death by crucifixion being the utter depths of shame and disgrace -- is also something found in Christian apologetic literature. It's hardly a new idea. What I'm thinking here is that if that was the reason for the introduction of crucifixion as the means of the messiah's death -- and Daniel 9:26 did say that the messiah/"anointed one" had to die --

[neilgodfrey]

@Neil

The obsession in the christians texts with Psalm 22 seems to indicate that this psalm was particularly read and recited to describe his death.

After that there is a certain amount of uncertainty. But I do not see which « prophetic » verse in the whole Tanakh could indicate how the Messiah will be put to death except Isaiah 53 which does not mention the way he is killed or Psalm 22 which speaks of pierced feet and hands.

Do you have another verse in mind from the prophetic writings?

"Pierce hands and feet" is our translation, but is that what the Psalm said to its readers around the turn of the century give or take a hundred years?

Was such a reading/translation evident to anyone before Justin?

Yes, sure, the Psalm has several verses that can be used to add colour to the death of the messiah. But the actual "piercing of hands and feet" is a translation that is not a secure indication of the original text, as several commentaries point out.

Other possibilities speak of "digging" or a lion "mauling" the hands and feet, which would suggest a metaphor for reducing a victim to a powerless state -- unable to walk or run, unable to fight back .... the original text does not so easily testify to "piercing" as in literal "nailing" the hands and feet. If it did originally read that way, we have a hard time understanding why there were no allusions to such a "proof-text" until Justin -- and the Gospel of Peter.

I think "the obsession" with the Psalm really begins with Justin.

[Sinouhe]

What I am wondering now as a possible answer -- and this comes as a result of having just read Friedlander's two articles on the "Melchizedekites" of pre-Christian times (thanks for alerting me to Friedlander, Giuseppe) and Birger Pearson's discussion of pre-Christian Jewish "Gnosticism" -- and all of this in the context of your (Sinhoue) studies into the whole Enoch and Enochian Parables ideas -- .... so I tried to return to basics:

Paul, even if the passage is second century, speaks of crucifixion as a "folly" as opposed to "wisdom", and as a "weakness" as opposed to "power" -- that connotes a syzygy, polar opposites; then there's the Philippian hymn: we are again talking about polar extremes, from god to human, and the phrase "even the death of the cross", not just a death, but the death by crucifixion -- that line appears to be added as an afterthought that upsets an otherwise nice poetic rhythm.

And our canonical book of Hebrews explicitly notes that the crucifixion is "a shame" -- and that concept is presented in the context of Jesus being entirely and in every (other) way utterly glorious.

Tentative conclusion:

Was the crucifixion idea a secondary development introduced to stress some sort of polar opposite of the highest imaginable glory (which is god-head and all the attributes that go with being God). Was the whole point of crucifixion per se (as distinct from any other form of death) introduced because of its associations with utter degradation. That is to say, Jesus did not just "die", oh no, but he died the worst and most disgraceful and shameful type of death, a death normally reserved for slaves and the most reprobate persons, the utter rebels.

Now if that were the case, we have an explanation for Hebrews speaking of "the shame" of the crucifixion, of "Paul" setting the crucifixion as a "folly" in opposition to wisdom, and as a weakness at the opposite end of power.

I think this notion -- death by crucifixion being the utter depths of shame and disgrace -- is also something found in Christian apologetic literature. It's hardly a new idea. What I'm thinking here is that if that was the reason for the introduction of crucifixion as the means of the messiah's death -- and Daniel 9:26 did say that the messiah/"anointed one" had to die --

I fully agree with your conclusions. The idea of a dead Messiah does not exist in the parables. However, he is associated with the servant of Isaiah in several verses. The idea of death must have come later because of their reading of Isaiah 53 and the psalms of lament.

Thus the Messiah was no longer just the savior of the last judgment. He became the great atoner of humanity.
A concept already present in Isaiah 53 and in 4Q541 where a high priest who seems supernatural will atone the sins of men.
And strangely enough, this high priest is associated with the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 by means of allusions.
Although the manuscript is fragmentary, some scholars conclude that it is through his life that he will atone for the sins of men.

I think there has been an evolution from the Messiah of the parables who was the simple servant of Isaiah who will judge men on the day of judgment, to the servant who suffers, who dies, who atones for the sins of men by his death, and who resurrects before becoming the judge at the end of time

[Sinouhe]

"Pierce hands and feet" is our translation, but is that what the Psalm said to its readers around the turn of the century give or take a hundred years?

I agree

Was such a reading/translation evident to anyone before Justin?

Yes, sure, the Psalm has several verses that can be used to add colour to the death of the messiah. But the actual "piercing of hands and feet" is a translation that is not a secure indication of the original text, as several commentaries point out.

Other possibilities speak of "digging" or a lion "mauling" the hands and feet, which would suggest a metaphor for reducing a victim to a powerless state -- unable to walk or run, unable to fight back .... the original text does not so easily testify to "piercing" as in literal "nailing" the hands and feet. If it did originally read that way, we have a hard time understanding why there were no allusions to such a "proof-text" until Justin -- and the Gospel of Peter.

I think "the obsession" with the Psalm really begins with Justin.

I agree that the translation of the Masoretic text does not give the pierced feet and hands. The Septuagint text, on the other hand, does mention pierced hands and feet. So there was a debate as to whether the Masoretic text contained the correct translation or whether the Septuagint, which is older but manipulated by the Christians, contained the correct translation. The discovery of the Nahal Hever (1st century) manuscript supports the Septuagint since it speaks of pierced hands and feet.

Capture d’écran 2022-05-16 à 18.20.23.png (159.61 KiB) Viewed 894 times

But I just thought of the verse in Zechariah that could have inspired the crucifixion to the Christians :

• Zechariah 12:10

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced (דָּקָ֑רוּ), and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.



דָּקָ֑רוּ = https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1856.htm

The verb is often used for someone who is pierced by a weapon.
This verse may have inspired the crucifixion of the first Christians.
As you explain it , a crucifixion was a degrading death that suits the concept of a heavenly Messiah who is incarnated in the flesh of the sinner to become himself on the same level as a slave.

I will try to find out if Paul uses the book of Zechariah in his letters.

[mlinssen]

I think this notion -- death by crucifixion being the utter depths of shame and disgrace -- is also something found in Christian apologetic literature. It's hardly a new idea. What I'm thinking here is that if that was the reason for the introduction of crucifixion as the means of the messiah's death -- and Daniel 9:26 did say that the messiah/"anointed one" had to die --

The death penalty was carried out by impalement. The body was put on the pointed top of a wooden stake and the victim’s weight drew the body down the pole. We have no representations of this procedure, but there is a hieroglyph depicting a body atop a stake after the phrase “to give on the wood.” The execution seems to have been in public; one text even says besides a temple

https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2016/01/c ... nic-egypt/

It all depends where the story began. But do realise that there hardly ever is something really out of the ordinary in any story, and certainly not "stacked": to kill a hero is extravagant enough, yet a painful death that he would simply endure without whining would be acceptable.
An extraordinarily shameful death? In that case, as well as the above one, the author would exploit the opportunity to rub it in

Nowhere in the gospels is there any element present that attests to an extraordinary death - there is no excitement, no tension, no suspense. No one is outraged or even indignant about the impaling, it is entirely uneventful

There simply is nothing special about the method of execution. It is a non issue.
Then why all the effort to change the impaling into a leisurely hanging from the cross, as excruciatingly uneconomic a punishment like that would be?

Because it has to be a dignified death

And all those who speak of shame? Those are just reading the text, and looking at it with non ANE eyes