Gregg

Interesting; if we say that perhaps this blasphemer stoned and hanged on the eve of Passover (by Jews at the order of the Jewish Sanhedrin) was Jesus, then this raises the question of why they'd change this to a crucifixion. Paul never says who crucified Jesus or for what crime, but if he was taking about an actual human being, his Gentile hearers would have to assume it was the Romans and that it was for a crime against the Roman state (the Romans would not execute someone for blasphemy against the Jewish religion, even at the request of the Jewish authorities). Thus the Christ being crucified would seem to increase his appeal to Jews but not to Gentiles, or at least not to Romans.

Stoning and hanging, while more "Jewish," would not make Jesus' death more "Temple sacrifice" -like, though. However it's interesting that the author of Acts puts the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews, not the Romans, saying they killed him by hanging him on a tree (Acts 5:30 and 10:39), which is still odd, since you say the Jewish death sentence involved stoning to death first, then hanging. It's all very confusing!

I'm going to have to try to discuss this with Doherty; I think he'll find it interesting. Currently, he seems to believe that the crucifixion was a development of Jewish Christians and came from passages such as Isaiah 53:5: "He was pierced for our transgressions," and Psalm 22:16: "They have pierced my hands and my feet." I wonder if it's possible that Christ crucified was a pre-Jewish development. Still, Psalm 22:16 could certainly make someone living under Roman rule envision a crucifixion.

MortalWombat

Who on these boards has said that AcharyaS represents the JM position?

Steven Avery

"why was Jesus crucified over Passover rather than Yom Kippur?"

I remember discussing a Talmudic (or rabbinical) passage that
asks whether Messiah (something) on Passover or Yom Kippur.
Don't remember how it was worded, Messiah's appearance, or what.

If anyone is familiar with this and has the reference and quote
it might be helpful for the discussion.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Gregg

Those are some pretty interesting coincidences, though. There's nothing that says Mark couldn't have had some of this stuff in mind when writing his gospel. The Babylonian captivity, with the Babylonians being big on astronomy and astrology, probably brought a lot of astrological symbolism into Judaism (especially the "twelve" tribes). Interest in the heavens, the seasons, the divisions of the year, the spring and summer equinoxes, etc. was pretty common throughout the ancient world. Of course the symbology is going to be consistent across cultures because most people in the world, except toward the poles, see the same sun, the same planets, sometimes the same star groupings (although of course that's very subjective), the same moon phases, the same changing of the seasons, the winter & summer equinoxes at the same time, springtime and harvest about the same time, and so on. Since most if not all ancient religions, certainly including Judaism, had roots in nature-based and astronomy/astrology-based beliefs, it was practically impossible for a new religion to develop out of older ones without carrying over some of this symbolism, even if much of it was no longer recognized as such.

So it's quite possible that Mark applied some astrological symbolism in developing details for his gospel story, or even that some astrological symbolism was already present in Christian belief. Thus doesn't mean that the whole religion developed out of astronomy/astrology alone.

joedad

Or just another good example of closet drama, particularly Mark.

Gregg

I wanted to return to the OP question of why the early Jewish Christians would not imagine Jesus as a burnt offering. It can't be forgotten that the whole descending redeemer scenario comes from Hellenistic philosophy. There was a whole structure in place, not universal or consistent by any means, but still, a system in which the general belief was that the one, perfect God lived on high, and that there were levels of heaven that grew progressively less perfect and more earthlike the further you descended, with the lowest heaven, the firmament being ruled by Satan and his demon spirits and torn by war, strife, envy, etc. These demon spirits cut the Earth and Sheol off from the higher heavens, sundered creation, and prevented the Earth from being paradise. Therefore, the role of the descending savior, in the view of some, was not just to die as a sacrifice for sin, but to defeat the demon spirits and rescue the dead from Sheol. That some people believed some version of this is evidenced by the Ascension of Isaiah.

So the Son descends through the heavens, disguising himself at each level, until, upon entering the firmament, he takes on the likeness of flesh, is seized by the demon spirits, and is put to death (my understanding is that in some versions of the story, they know who he is, in others they don't). He then descends into Sheol, rescues the faithful dead, reenters the firmament from the other direction as a being of power and glory, and tramples Satan and his evil angels underfoot.

So the question is; does having Jesus burnt instead of crucified allow for this? Is it even possible within this cosmology? It seems doubtful that the heavenly Temple, the Holy of Holies, would have been located in the firmament. Would the demon spirits have been able to rise any higher than the firmament? Even if the Temple were located in the firmament, or if the evil angels could rise above the firmament, could anything unclean enter the Temple or the Holy of Holies? Seems doubtful Jews would imagine any such thing being possible.

Now, let's consider stoning and hanging. This is "more Jewish" and it's a bit easier to accept the evil angels stoning and hanging the Christ than it is to accept them bringing him into the heavenly sanctuary as a burnt offering. Still, there could have been an issue among Jews of having the evil angels use Jewish methods of dispensing with Jesus, whether burning him or stoning/hanging him. Associating the demon spirits, the "rulers of this age," with Jews could have been a very unpalatable thought or one that was never even considered at the early stages (although it certainly might have been considered later). It would have been far easier to associate the demon spirits with the Romans, who were after all the corresponding Earthly "rulers of this age" from the Jewish perspective. That, of course, would mean crucifixion, and Psalm 22:16 fit right into that interpretation.

I'm still interested in the possibility that the concept of a crucified Christ developed even before the blending of Judaism and Hellenistic philosophy, though.

Gregg

Ignoring that the evidence for the JM thesis is far more wide-ranging and compelling than your Ikea Catalog thesis, of course.

Jayrok

The passover lamb's blood was to seal the Israelites in safety from the angel of death. The Jews were bought with the lamb's blood so that they would not have to face death. Symbolically Christ's sacrifice on the cross purchased the safety of those who believe so that they, like the Islraelites in Egypt, will not have to face death, but have eternal life.

The passover lamb was eaten, but isn't this the Lord's supper? "This is my body and my blood"... "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you."

These themes go better with passover than Yom Kippur. YK may signify atonement and repentence, but passover signifies being saved from death. In christianity's case, saved from the "second" or spiritual death.

Repentence and turning away from sinning seems more in line with baptism IMO. First your soul is purchased, not by any action on your part (i.e. repenting), but by the actions of Jesus... like passover. Once you are purchased with the blood, then you show repentence and the desire to turn from sinning by being baptized which symbolizes your old sinful self dying and rising a new creation after the cleansing of your sins.

At least that's the way I viewed it. Passover makes more sense. Jesus paid the debt for death/eternal life... you still have to show repentence in your life.

And isn't Yom Kippur a ritual fast where no food or drink is to be consumed and work is forbidden? Would the last supper be more in line with YK or passover? And with no work being allowed on YK, how could the Sanhedrin assemble to put Jesus on trial? Of course it seems if the trial and crucifixion were historical, the Sanhedrin would simply keep Jesus locked up until passover was complete before they executed him. Taking a chance on him dying and being taken down before passover, as well as the sabbath, seems very unlikely. Why they were in such a hurry doesn't make sense... unless it's just a story.

jgibson000

Could you please provide me with some evidence from Jewish sources that Jews ever spoke of/thought that what the passover lamb's blood did was to buy something, let alone "eternal life"?

Jeffrey Gibson

Jayrok

"buy" is an expression. It is more a christian term as in "Jesus paid the price". I was not insinuating that the Jews felt they were "bought" by the lamb's blood. Just trying to tie it in with a christian view.

And of course the Jewish passover was not good for "eternal life". I didn't say that it was. This idea is also christian with regards to Jesus' actions on the cross. I'm just trying to tie the two events together. Christianity taking a local event like passover and expanding on it in a larger picture.

Passover story being a single event to save young Jews from physical death. Crucifixion story being a single event to save everyone from spiritual death.