Freethought & Rationalism Archive

avi · 01-24-2011, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is curious that the same terminology is used in the Pastoral Epistles and related pseudo-historical testimonies of early Christianity possibly opening the door to a common author or authors.

I am unable to understand this sentence. Can you elaborate?

For example, do you intend to write that Paul's epistles, though not discussing John the Baptist, nor referencing either Josephus or Philo, nevertheless contain phrases, or nouns which are specific, and unique to other early Christian tracts?

Which words or phrases are found in which early documents, to suggest a common author?

Why wouldn't an easier explanation involve interpolation by a common author, hint: Eusebius?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

I'm not convinced at all that any of the letters of Paul suggest any knowledge of anything in Josephus.

Yes, we really need a dissection here. Are Paul's letters, whether authentic or not, related in some way to ANY of the other early Christian writings? A family tree would be useful. Trouble is, which branch, or limb, or twig, came first? Which element gave rise to which descendant. Isn't the difficulty in constructing such a tree, for example, relating various accounts describing John the Baptist, evidence that favors mountainman's hypothesis?

In other words, if we pick some controversial issue, like, say, the origin of the USA civil war, one can go back and trace the various philosophical ideas, and their origins, all the way back to the French Revolution, and ultimately, to Spartacus. Why can't we do that with John the Baptist? Isn't it odd that we lack an extant, written, believable, document, dated prior to Constantine, describing John the Baptist, at least in some fashion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Or anything from the gospel story either? What is fundamental to both the writing of Paul, the gospels and the wonder-worker story in Slavonic Josephus, is the crucifixion element. Is there a connection between these three stories? Sure, details may vary - but that is only to be expected, a basic template allows for developments of the storyline. Paul has taken a spiritual or intellectualizing interpretation. The gospels developed the story with connecting JtB with JC. And possibly, in the gospel of Mark conflated two Slavonic Josephus stories of JtB.

Thank you for discussing Slavonic Josephus. I agree with your underlying philosophy, to examine the record critically, and broaden the scope of our inquiry, but, I just have no confidence that this is not simply another hoax.

If you read those two web sites, I had linked to, a few days ago, you will see that at least one modern scholar AGREES with the idea that Slavonic Josephus is the real McCoy, however, when one digs a little deeper, into that story, it seems, at least from my reading of those two sites, that some scholar(s) believe, (on what basis I do not know) that Josephus had access to the original Roman JAIL records, showing that JC had been imprisoned. To me, that's a stretch of the imagination.

Maybe the Romans did keep such accurate data, and maybe Josephus the Jew, could waltz into the record keeping department in Roman occupied Jerusalem, and demand access to such written records, and maybe they would have kept them intact during the destruction of the temple in 70ce, and maybe ....

Slavonic Josephus and the Roman Josephus just look to me like two slightly altered versions of Odysseus....

avi

maryhelena · 01-24-2011, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Thank you for discussing Slavonic Josephus. I agree with your underlying philosophy, to examine the record critically, and broaden the scope of our inquiry, but, I just have no confidence that this is not simply another hoax.

If you read those two web sites, I had linked to, a few days ago, you will see that at least one modern scholar AGREES with the idea that Slavonic Josephus is the real McCoy, however, when one digs a little deeper, into that story, it seems, at least from my reading of those two sites, that some scholar(s) believe, (on what basis I do not know) that Josephus had access to the original Roman JAIL records, showing that JC had been imprisoned. To me, that's a stretch of the imagination.

Maybe the Romans did keep such accurate data, and maybe Josephus the Jew, could waltz into the record keeping department in Roman occupied Jerusalem, and demand access to such written records, and maybe they would have kept them intact during the destruction of the temple in 70ce, and maybe ....

Slavonic Josephus and the Roman Josephus just look to me like two slightly altered versions of Odysseus....

Yes, I did look at the two websites. I also googled for the book by Arthur E. Palumbo and found a pdf to download. The book has a chapter on Slavonic Josephus. However, it seems to be mainly dealing with the theory by Robert Eisler. A theory involving a historical Jesus and the resulting assumptions that stem from that.

http://www.sheekh-3arb.org/library/b...en/dss/007.pdf

Quote:

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Personages of Earliest Christianity By Arthur E. Palumbo.

Eisler endeavored to restore the Slavonic passages about John the Baptist, Jesus, and the early Christians to their original form through a detailed analysis of the text. He then made them the basis of a novel and controversial theory of Christian origins. In other chapters, various passages from the Slavonic Josephus have been discussed along with Eisler’s restorations of them where applicable. With regard to the Slavonic Jesus passage to be discussed below, he thought that Josephus derived the original form of it from the actual records of Jesus’ trial in the Roman archives.

It must be admitted that most scholars have not accepted Eisler’s theory and believe that the Slavonic Josephus is either a medieval Christian or Jewish forgery — the purpose of which was to make Josephus testify either for or against the Christian faith. The most complete attempt to refute his theory is a 284-page book by J. W. Jack that was written in 1933. John P. Meier summarized the present scholarly consensus regarding the Slavonic Josephus and Eisler’s utilization of it in the following way:

Despite the spirited and ingenious attempt of Robert Eisler in the 1920s and 1930s to defend the authenticity of much of the Jesus material in the Slavonic Jewish War, almost all critics today discount his theory. After carefully examining the various opinions, I must accept Eisler’s theory for the following reasons:

So, I think perhaps its a case of scholars rejecting the theories that Robert Eisler built upon his interpretations of Slavonic Josephus - and then giving Slavonic Josephus a wide berth...

Bottom line is that for historicists to find some value in Slavonic Josephus - ie acknowledge it had a role to play in the formation of the NT storyline - they have to welcome Josephus into the fold, that Josephus had a finger in the pie. Not as a purely impartial historian - but as he himself acknowledges, his interest in prophetic interpretations of Jewish history. A characteristic of Josephus that is being acknowledged by some modern day researchers.

So, methinks, its high time that mythicists give Slavonic Josephus another look. The historicists are not going to be laying out the red carpet for Josephus...

avi · 01-24-2011, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Church Slavonic

Two Greek missionary brothers created Church Slavonic as a written language in the 9th century, SS. Cyril and Methodius. When they began there missionary work in what is now Bulgaria there was no written form for Slavic languages. They created the Cyrillic alphabet to capture the sounds of the local tongue and merged the local language with some Greek linguistic features to create a written language. They then proceeded to translate the bible and ecclesiastic material into this language. The earliest form of the alphabet is Glagolitic with the final form being Cyrillic. This is not exactly the same as the Cyrillic in use today which was simplified in Russian linguistic reforms in modern times.

Scholars recognize three major recessions of Church Slavonic, Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian. The Russian is the largest in terms of usage area and population. Thus this recession receives most of the scholarly activity and attention. Each ethnic group using Church Slavonic does put their own stamp on the language, especially in terms of pronunciation. These variations are for the most part transmitted orally.

The earliest extant literature dates from the 10th and 11th centuries. These are translations of biblical material for the most part. There is little in the Church Slavonic corpus of literature of wide scholarly interest because most of the material and virtually all of the early material is translations from other sources where the originals still exist. The major exception to this is "Slavonic Josephus." There are Christian interpolations into the historical writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, that are only preserved in Church Slavonic.

I have a lot of difficulty accepting the idea that some document from Bulgaria, written in the 10th century, in Russian, is genuine.

That just shows my instinctive mistrust. If it were an extant manuscript from the 3rd century, I would have more interest. Anything after Constantine, in my view, is corrupt until proven otherwise.

avi

PhilosopherJay · 01-24-2011, 09:00 PM

Hi maryhelena et. al.

Just as I do not think the writer/s of Paul's epistles was referring to the baptism episode in the gospels when he/they used the term baptism (baptizo), I do not think he/they was referring to the crucifixion described in the gospels when he/they used the term crucify or cross (stauvros)

Here's is something interesting

Quote:

The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short gives the meaning of crux as "a tree, frame, or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged." The Roman historian of the first century B.C.E. Livy gave the crux as a simple stake. Cross only became a later meaning of crux. The same as the Latin crux simplex illustrated by Justus Lipsius as a simple upright pole.

From stauros; to impale on the cross; figuratively, to extinguish (subdue) passion or selfishness -- crucify.

Strong has σταυρός (cross) 4716 an upright stake, hence a cross (the Rom. instrument of crucifixion) and σταυρόω (fix to the cross) 4717 to fence with stakes, to crucify.

There is a fascinating discourse on the Greek (stavros) and Latin (Crux) by Dan Mattsson which includes this:

Quote:

A discussion of this occurred in November on the ANE list. In the Talmud and in the Rabbinic literature we find the verb tsalab (or
the corresponding noun) which refers to the instrument on which people were
hanged It is interesting to note that the rabbis did not use tsalab with
the modern meaning "crucify". According to Marcus Jastrow (1989, "A
Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi", and the
Midrashic Literature, p 1282) the verb both in Hebrew and Aramaic means «to
hang, impale». Some of the examples he gives and his translation is as
follows: Tosefta Gittin 4:11: "nailed to the stake"; Midrash Rabba to
Esther where Deuteronomy 28:66 is refered to: "who is taken out to be
impaled"; Midrash Rabba to Leviticus "is going to be hanged". Thus the
Jewish literature after the time of Jesus continued to use terms for
hanging (on a stake) which did not point to a particular shape of the
instrument on which one was hanged. As late as the 14th century the Hebrew
noun TSALAB did not signify a stake with a particular shape. In 1380 Shem
Tob ben Shaprut copied the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. In Matthew 27:32 he
used the noun TSELIBA where the Greek text has STAUROS. Shem Tob realized
that this word would not be understood as "cross", and therefore he added
SHETI WA' EREB which means "cross". Howard's translation (George Howard,
1987, The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text) is as
follows: "They compelled him to carry the gallows (TSELIBA), that is, "The
Cross"."

A similar ambiguity as is found in TSELAB/TSELIBA, seems to have existed
regarding the latin word "crux" whose basic meaning also was "pole" or
"stake".
Seneca (c.4 BC-65 CE) wrote: "I see crosses (plural of crux) there, not
just of one kind, but made in many different ways; some have their victims
with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others
stretch out their arms on the gibbet." As late as the 16th century the word
"crux" could signify different shapes. In my copy of "De Cruce Liber
Primus" by Justus Lipsius who wrote in the 16th century there are many
illustrations of different "crosses", including three illustrations of
"crux simplex" which is an upright pole to which the victims could be
nailed or bound in different ways. As to STAUROS, its original and generic
meaning has even reached Norwegian. The first meaning assigned to STAUROS
in "Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Greque, 1980, by P Chantraine,
is pole (pieu). It also says: "The word corresponds exactly to the Norse
"staurr" (pole)." In modern Norwegian "staur" means "pole" or "stake". We
also find the word in Sanskrit as "sthavara", and in Gothic as "stiurjan"
with the meaning "something standing upright". So the original meaning of
STAUROS evidently was strong and continued for a long time, even spreading
to other languages

I therefore conclude that in some places, such as Matthew 20:19, the
evidence suggests that "cross" or "crucify" would be a wrong rendering, and
in the other occurrences in the NT there is absolutely no evidence that can
substantiate the rendering "cross".

From this, I would suggest that the word "crucify" probably brings up too many modern connotations of Jesus on a cross to be a good translation for "Stauvros" in the works of Paul. I suggest that most of the time the word "Stake" or "staked" itself would be closer to the real meaning when it is used in Paul's epistles.

Here are the 11 times that the word cross or crucify are used in Paul:

Quote:

Hebrews 6:6
and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

• 1 Corinthians 1:13
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

• 1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

• 1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

• 1 Corinthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

• 2 Corinthians 13:4
For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him in our dealing with you.

• Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

• Galatians 3:1
[ Faith or Works of the Law ] You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

• Galatians 5:24
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

• Galatians 6:14
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

I would say that the word stake would be better in all instances with the idea of being staked or attached in the Earth being the image closest to what the writer/s are getting at. Only in 1 Corinthians 1:13 might it retain its gospel meaning and only in Galatians 5:24 would it mean a subduing in the passions. Thus better translations might be:

Quote:

Hebrews 6:6
and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are staking[attaching to] the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

• 1 Corinthians 1:13
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

• 1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ staked[attached]: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

• 1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him staked[attached].

• 1 Corinthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have staked the Lord of glory.

• 2 Corinthians 13:4
For to be sure, he was staked in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him in our dealing with you.

• Galatians 2:20
I have been staked[attached] with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

• Galatians 3:1
[ Faith or Works of the Law ] You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as staked.

• Galatians 5:24
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have subdued the flesh with its passions and desires.

• Galatians 6:14
May I never boast except in the stake of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been staked[attached] to me, and I to the world.

In my original baptism post for this thread, I suggested that the Jesus Christ being referred to by Paul's text was Adam. If we imagine that people were arguing that Adam was attached to the Earth and therefore could not be the coming Messiah, then the meaning of the message in the letters become clear. The powers staked or attached Adam to the Earth. God has freed him and brought him to heaven and he will come as our savior to lift us up from the Earth.

We should remember that the name "Adam" means Earth. Thus the God who made Adam out of clay/Earth attached or staked him to the Earth by giving him the name Adam or "Earth" that his body was made from.

If this is correct than the writers of the epistles had the story of the creation of Adam in mind when he/they talked of the crucifixion of Christ.

This can easily be connected with Philo's conception of two Adams. See, for example this.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay
AKA Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I'm not convinced at all that any of the letters of Paul suggest any knowledge of anything in Josephus.

Or anything from the gospel story either? What is fundamental to both the writing of Paul, the gospels and the wonder-worker story in Slavonic Josephus, is the crucifixion element. Is there a connection between these three stories? Sure, details may vary - but that is only to be expected, a basic template allows for developments of the storyline. Paul has taken a spiritual or intellectualizing interpretation. The gospels developed the story with connecting JtB with JC. And possibly, in the gospel of Mark conflated two Slavonic Josephus stories of JtB.

Mark ch.6

14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
15 Others said, “He is Elijah.”
And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”
16 But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”
17 For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison.

Hearing this, Herod was enraged and ordered
him to be beaten and thrown out. He, however,
did not cease but wherever he encountered
Herod spoke thus (and) accused him
until he put him in a dungeon.

17 He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”19 So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to,
20 because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.

And when he was brought before
Archelaus and the experts of the Law were
assembled, they asked him who he was and
where he had been up till then...
Thus he spoke and left for the other side of the
Jordan. And as no one dared to prevent him,
he was doing what he had done before”

The gospel of Matthew (ch.14) makes no mention of Herod the tetrarch (Antipas) having a favourable impression of JtB, indicating that this account is not endeavouring to conflate the two accounts from Slavonic Josephus as is the gospel of Mark.

Yes, as Stephan Huller says, Josephus is a minefield - so one does need 'protective' headgear around his writing - sometimes it's just necessary to talk to ones enemy...

DCHindley · 01-24-2011, 09:35 PM

MH,

When I checked out Leeming & Leeming's book on Slavonic Josephus, I copied the introduction, all 105 pages of it, just for the background. From the grammar and vocabulary they conclude:

1) The translation was made in the kingdom of Rus'
2) The translation was made into the Russian literary language of the older formation (i.e., Old Church Slavonic, with the source document being Greek)
3) The translation was not made later than the 12th century, and grounds exist to regard it as mid 11th century
4) The translation was made with the aim of substantiating anti-Khazar (the royalty of which converted to Judaism) and anti-Judaic (they get what they deserve for rejecting their Christ) propaganda already in existence
5) The translation was made in the south of Rus' territory, most likely in the southeast, near the Black Sea (not Bulgaria) and Khazar territory
6) The translator was a member of the Russian Orthodox faith (many Rus' were not, even in this period) with an excellent knowledge of ecclesiastical texts, including the bible, liturgy and other church literature
7) The translator was not a priest, but more likely a layman close to the military and knightly environment (he shows a fascination with the means of warfare indicated in Josephus' Jewish War).

Eisler had suggested that a lost Aramaic account of the Capture of Jerusalem (by the Romans), which Josephus says he published for the Jews of Babylon before the fuller Jewish War came out in Greek in the mid to late 70's, influenced the Russian translation of the Jewish War, either directly in Aramaic or in Greek translation by a Jewish heretic of the 14-15th centuries.

While acknowledging that there is evidence that as early as the 11th-12th century, Rus' translators had tackled a Russian version of the Hebrew Josippon (a loose retelling of some parts of Jewish War mixed with legendary materials), Eisler's position is not endorsed by Leeming & Leeming. They explain the unique info in the Slavonic translation of Jewish War as the translator's own embellishments of the story based on his militaristic, and anti-Jewish Eastern Orthodox Christian POV. The Slavonic translation of Jewish War seems strange to us because the translator's POV is very different than the anti-Jewish Roman Catholic POV of the states occupying western Europe. In fact, the Old Slavonic translation is touted as a uniquely Rus' literary redaction, of very high quality, in which the translator has essentially retold and reshaped the entire story (leaving out details of no interest to him and adding his own opinions good and bad about the politics of, and military tactics used by, the "Latins" and Jews).

Sleep calls me.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

We tend to think of history writing as it is today for the most part, just an orderly recitation of the facts with listed sources. Apparently, in medieval Russia/Ukraine, the writer was given the freedom of the novelist to arrange and embellish and even invent the facts, in order to tell a good story. I think that is what we see in Slavonic Josephus.
...
If Slavonic Josephus does represent the original Josephus text, one wonders why no Christian ever quoted any of it in the 1800 years between its composition and discovery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Eisler

As a matter of fact, not a single Greek, Latin, Slavonic, or other Josephus text has come down to us which has not passed through the hands of Christian scribes and Christian owners. The numerous glosses and marginal notes, abounding in every single manuscript [10], fully bear out this statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur E. Palumbo, DSS etc. chapter 19, page 225

Why would a Jewish forger have taken the time and effort to revise Josephus' entire Jewish War, in order to insert a few derogatory passages about John the Baptist, Jesus, and the early Christians into it?

Thank you both, Jay and MaryHelena, for such an interesting discussion.....

avi

maryhelena · 01-24-2011, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

MH,

When I checked out Leeming & Leeming's book on Slavonic Josephus, I copied the introduction, all 105 pages of it, just for the background. From the grammar and vocabulary they conclude:

1) The translation was made in the kingdom of Rus'
2) The translation was made into the Russian literary language of the older formation (i.e., Old Church Slavonic, with the source document being Greek)
3) The translation was not made later than the 12th century, and grounds exist to regard it as mid 11th century
4) The translation was made with the aim of substantiating anti-Khazar (the royalty of which converted to Judaism) and anti-Judaic (they get what they deserve for rejecting their Christ) propaganda already in existence
5) The translation was made in the south of Rus' territory, most likely in the southeast, near the Black Sea (not Bulgaria) and Khazar territory
6) The translator was a member of the Russian Orthodox faith (many Rus' were not, even in this period) with an excellent knowledge of ecclesiastical texts, including the bible, liturgy and other church literature
7) The translator was not a priest, but more likely a layman close to the military and knightly environment (he shows a fascination with the means of warfare indicated in Josephus' Jewish War).

Eisler had suggested that a lost Aramaic account of the Capture of Jerusalem (by the Romans), which Josephus says he published for the Jews of Babylon before the fuller Jewish War came out in Greek in the mid to late 70's, influenced the Russian translation of the Jewish War, either directly in Aramaic or in Greek translation by a Jewish heretic of the 14-15th centuries.

While acknowledging that there is evidence that as early as the 11th-12th century, Rus' translators had tackled a Russian version of the Hebrew Josippon (a loose retelling of some parts of Jewish War mixed with legendary materials), Eisler's position is not endorsed by Leeming & Leeming. They explain the unique info in the Slavonic translation of Jewish War as the translator's own embellishments of the story based on his militaristic, and anti-Jewish Eastern Orthodox Christian POV. The Slavonic translation of Jewish War seems strange to us because the translator's POV is very different than the anti-Jewish Roman Catholic POV of the states occupying western Europe. In fact, the Old Slavonic translation is touted as a uniquely Rus' literary redaction, of very high quality, in which the translator has essentially retold and reshaped the entire story (leaving out details of no interest to him and adding his own opinions good and bad about the politics of, and military tactics used by, the "Latins" and Jews).

Sleep calls me.

DCH

That was some work if you had to type it all out...

The choice seems to be between going along with the idea that the relevant Slavonic Josephus gospel storyline elements are pure imagination:

(a loose retelling of some parts of Jewish War mixed with legendary materials), (They explain the unique info in the Slavonic translation of Jewish War as the translator's own embellishments..)(the translator has essentially retold and reshaped the entire story).

Or? Was the translator working from what he had in front of him re the gospel related stories? Imagination running wild - or a copyist doing his best with translating the material in hand? How does one decide? I would think that the material in question should be considered with the gospel material we do have - and allow whatever contradictions we might find between the two to open up the debate rather than close it down. It's a job historicists would not relish - much easier to label Slavonic Josephus to be of no consequence, just a hoax, a forgery, than to examine it objectively in connection with the gospel storyline.

Interesting that the term "unique" material within Slavonic Josephus is used...
- yep, and one wonders where the copyist got the idea that Herodias was married to Philip - dreamland - or had he some connection to an ancient history source on the Herodians? Looks to me it might well be the same source that the gospel writers, Mark and Matthew, used - for they came up with the same historical reference (but scholars simply say they are in error - Josephus, in Antiquities, saying otherwise in 93 ce)

(Nikos Kokkinos thinks Josephus is in error re his Antiquities statement re Philip).

Sure, I may be going out on a limb here - but I'm finding it truly fascinating to see how the NT storyline develops from the core template that is contained within the Slavonic Josephus material.

Others might see reduction and wild imagination from the pen of the translator of Slavonic Josephus. I view the material as a draft - a draft of a storyline that develops to the grand finale in the gospel storyline.

my bolding

maryhelena · 01-25-2011, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena et. al.

Just as I do not think the writer/s of Paul's epistles was referring to the baptism episode in the gospels when he/they used the term baptism (baptizo), I do not think he/they was referring to the crucifixion described in the gospels when he/they used the term crucify or cross (stauvros)

Here's is something interesting

Quote:

The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short gives the meaning of crux as "a tree, frame, or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged." The Roman historian of the first century B.C.E. Livy gave the crux as a simple stake. Cross only became a later meaning of crux. The same as the Latin crux simplex illustrated by Justus Lipsius as a simple upright pole.

From stauros; to impale on the cross; figuratively, to extinguish (subdue) passion or selfishness -- crucify.

Strong has σταυρός (cross) 4716 an upright stake, hence a cross (the Rom. instrument of crucifixion) and σταυρόω (fix to the cross) 4717 to fence with stakes, to crucify.

There is a fascinating discourse on the Greek (stavros) and Latin (Crux) by Dan Mattsson which includes this:

Quote:

A discussion of this occurred in November on the ANE list. In the Talmud and in the Rabbinic literature we find the verb tsalab (or
the corresponding noun) which refers to the instrument on which people were
hanged It is interesting to note that the rabbis did not use tsalab with
the modern meaning "crucify". According to Marcus Jastrow (1989, "A
Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi", and the
Midrashic Literature, p 1282) the verb both in Hebrew and Aramaic means «to
hang, impale». Some of the examples he gives and his translation is as
follows: Tosefta Gittin 4:11: "nailed to the stake"; Midrash Rabba to
Esther where Deuteronomy 28:66 is refered to: "who is taken out to be
impaled"; Midrash Rabba to Leviticus "is going to be hanged". Thus the
Jewish literature after the time of Jesus continued to use terms for
hanging (on a stake) which did not point to a particular shape of the
instrument on which one was hanged. As late as the 14th century the Hebrew
noun TSALAB did not signify a stake with a particular shape. In 1380 Shem
Tob ben Shaprut copied the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. In Matthew 27:32 he
used the noun TSELIBA where the Greek text has STAUROS. Shem Tob realized
that this word would not be understood as "cross", and therefore he added
SHETI WA' EREB which means "cross". Howard's translation (George Howard,
1987, The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text) is as
follows: "They compelled him to carry the gallows (TSELIBA), that is, "The
Cross"."

A similar ambiguity as is found in TSELAB/TSELIBA, seems to have existed
regarding the latin word "crux" whose basic meaning also was "pole" or
"stake".
Seneca (c.4 BC-65 CE) wrote: "I see crosses (plural of crux) there, not
just of one kind, but made in many different ways; some have their victims
with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others
stretch out their arms on the gibbet." As late as the 16th century the word
"crux" could signify different shapes. In my copy of "De Cruce Liber
Primus" by Justus Lipsius who wrote in the 16th century there are many
illustrations of different "crosses", including three illustrations of
"crux simplex" which is an upright pole to which the victims could be
nailed or bound in different ways. As to STAUROS, its original and generic
meaning has even reached Norwegian. The first meaning assigned to STAUROS
in "Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue Greque, 1980, by P Chantraine,
is pole (pieu). It also says: "The word corresponds exactly to the Norse
"staurr" (pole)." In modern Norwegian "staur" means "pole" or "stake". We
also find the word in Sanskrit as "sthavara", and in Gothic as "stiurjan"
with the meaning "something standing upright". So the original meaning of
STAUROS evidently was strong and continued for a long time, even spreading
to other languages

I therefore conclude that in some places, such as Matthew 20:19, the
evidence suggests that "cross" or "crucify" would be a wrong rendering, and
in the other occurrences in the NT there is absolutely no evidence that can
substantiate the rendering "cross".

From this, I would suggest that the word "crucify" probably brings up too many modern connotations of Jesus on a cross to be a good translation for "Stauvros" in the works of Paul. I suggest that most of the time the word "Stake" or "staked" itself would be closer to the real meaning when it is used in Paul's epistles.

Here are the 11 times that the word cross or crucify are used in Paul:

Quote:

Hebrews 6:6
and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

• 1 Corinthians 1:13
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

• 1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

• 1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

• 1 Corinthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

• 2 Corinthians 13:4
For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him in our dealing with you.

• Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

• Galatians 3:1
[ Faith or Works of the Law ] You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

• Galatians 5:24
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

• Galatians 6:14
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

I would say that the word stake would be better in all instances with the idea of being staked or attached in the Earth being the image closest to what the writer/s are getting at. Only in 1 Corinthians 1:13 might it retain its gospel meaning and only in Galatians 5:24 would it mean a subduing in the passions. Thus better translations might be:

Quote:

Hebrews 6:6
and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are staking[attaching to] the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

• 1 Corinthians 1:13
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

• 1 Corinthians 1:23
but we preach Christ staked[attached]: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

• 1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him staked[attached].

• 1 Corinthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have staked the Lord of glory.

• 2 Corinthians 13:4
For to be sure, he was staked in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him in our dealing with you.

• Galatians 2:20
I have been staked[attached] with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

• Galatians 3:1
[ Faith or Works of the Law ] You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as staked.

• Galatians 5:24
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have subdued the flesh with its passions and desires.

• Galatians 6:14
May I never boast except in the stake of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been staked[attached] to me, and I to the world.

In my original baptism post for this thread, I suggested that the Jesus Christ being referred to by Paul's text was Adam. If we imagine that people were arguing that Adam was attached to the Earth and therefore could not be the coming Messiah, then the meaning of the message in the letters become clear. The powers staked or attached Adam to the Earth. God has freed him and brought him to heaven and he will come as our savior to lift us up from the Earth.

We should remember that the name "Adam" means Earth. Thus the God who made Adam out of clay/Earth attached or staked him to the Earth by giving him the name Adam or "Earth" that his body was made from.

If this is correct than the writers of the epistles had the story of the creation of Adam in mind when he/they talked of the crucifixion of Christ.

This can easily be connected with Philo's conception of two Adams. See, for example this.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay
AKA Jay Raskin

I'm with you in the idea that Paul is doing his own thing re his spiritualizing, or philosophizing, or intellectualizing, his take on the Jesus story. A story that, if his own words are to mean anything, was a story in existence prior to time. In other words:

Galatians 1:23

"They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

Paul knows something about the faith of the people that he had formally been persecuting. His new take on things, is just that, a new take on an already existing faith position. What that faith was about is where problems would come up for any mythicist theory that would seek to uphold the absurd idea that everything regarding Paul's storyline came out of his own head. Imagination only goes so far; its useless as a medium to convince others to ones point of view. Flights of fantasy need to be grounded if they are to be of benefit in the real world. A mythicist position that is all 'up in the air' will never succeed in gaining much traction.

The other point, is of course, Paul's use of parallels. Spiritualizing requires a counterpart in physical reality.

Galatians 4:25-27

" Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother."

So, if Paul wants to turn water baptism into something spiritual, if he wants to turn crucifixion into something spiritual - good for him. But it would leave us coming very short were we to imagine for one minute that he was denying the relevance of physical reality. In this case the reality of the faith that he was previously persecuting.

As to whether the gospel crucifixion story relates to a cross or a stake - perhaps an interesting language issue for those so inclined. However, for a mythicist, the important thing is not the gospel storyline, in and of itself, but the actual history of the relevant time period; which is a history of the end of the Hasmonean period and the rise of the Herodian.

As for crucifixion - here is something that I posted in another thread:

Quote:

Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion: David W. Chapman (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Pages 8 - 12

Latin Terminology

The English terminology has roots in the Latin verb crucifigo........to fasten to a crux. A crux was a wooden instrument of execution upon which a person was suspended. Other terms may be used to refer to the victim or to indicate verbally the action of crucifixion. It is common for modern authors to distinguish four shapes of crosses: crux immissa......crux commissa....the Greek cross...and crux decussate or St Andrew’s cross. The cross bar of the crux, a kind of yoke, is sometimes designated a patibulum. Criminals can also be spoken of as being fixed to a pole/stake (palus, sudis) or to a piece of wood (lignum).

However, even the so-called technical terminology could give the misleading impression that execution via the crux had only a limited range of shapes and practices. A well-known quote from Seneca indicates otherwise........(“I see there crosses, not merely of one kind, but fashioned differently by others: a certain one suspends (a person)with his head upside down towards the ground, others impale a stake through the sexual organs, others extend the arms by a yoke (patibulum)".. Understanding the three clauses beginning with capite as explications of “video istic cruces...”, then even impaling of the genitals on a stipes (“tree, branch”) can be considered affixing to a crux. That Seneca distinguished what he “saw” from any possible expectations to a unity of appearances of the cross (“non unius quidem generis”) may show both (1) that under the Romans in this time execution on the cross tended to follow a fairly common routine, and (2) that there could be significant exceptions that are designated by the same terminology. Indeed the affixing of a dead body to a crux could also be described as a crucifixion in Latin.

Thus a variety of words could be used to speak of crucifixion, and even the most technical Latin terms could refer to the suspension of humans in ways only vaguely resembling execution on a crux immissa. This relative flexibility in terminology is all the more obvious in the extant Greek sources.

Greek Terminology

Nevertheless, in Greek it is rare for the semantic range of any single term to be confined to “crucifixion”. For example a******appears originally to have referred to an upright pole. ......Hence it naturally follows that both. **** and **** can refer to the building of stockades as well as to the setting up of poles (especially for the purpose of suspending people on *****). Elsewhere a ****can be used as a place of scouring, with the death following from some other method.

A ****likewise generally refers to “anything pointed” including pales, stakes, thorns, a point of a fishhook, and (in the plural) a palisade.

However, the “fundamental” references to an upright pole in ****and its cognates, and to pointy objects in **** and its cognates, does not rightly imply such that terminology in antiquity, when applied to crucifixion, invariable referred to a single upright beam. This is a common word study fallacy in some populist literature. In fact, such terminology often referred in antiquity to cross-shaped crucifixion devices. For example, Lucian, in a brief dialogue that employs most Greek crucifixion vocabulary, refers to the “crucifixion” of Prometheus, whose arms are pinned while stretched from one rock to another. Such a cross-shaped crucifixion position in the Roman era may actually have been the norm; nevertheless, the point to be sustained at this stage is that this position was not the only one to be designated with these Greek terms.

Perhaps most importantly, there is often ambiguity in crucifixion and suspension accounts as to whether the person is being suspended before or after death. So, Josephus, while most often utilizing **** to indicate a means of execution, can also say that the Philistines “crucified” the dead bodies of Saul and his sons “to the walls of the city of Bethsan”.

The ***** is where I could not type the Greek words....

footnote: There seems to be a new edition of the above book on Amazon - so here is the url rather than the
ISBN number.

Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Chili · 01-25-2011, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

We should remember that the name "Adam" means Earth. Thus the God who made Adam out of clay/Earth attached or staked him to the Earth by giving him the name Adam or "Earth" that his body was made from.

If this is correct than the writers of the epistles had the story of the creation of Adam in mind when he/they talked of the crucifixion of Christ.

This can easily be connected with Philo's conception of two Adams. See, for example this.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay
AKA Jay Raskin

Not sure how or why Adam means 'earth' but Gen. 3 makes it clear that the word Adam makes reference to the persona of man instead of the man to whom this persona was attached to exist only in his imagination after his eyes were opened in verse 9 with: "Adam where are you?" and "Who told you that you were naked" [to have shame]. If you compare this with Gen 2:25 where they were both naked and felt no shame it is obvious that the TOK (wherein only shame can be conceived to exist) is the place wherein Adam was conceived to exist (in the imagination only) and has nothing to do with earth except in its opposite to heaven on earth! (exclamation is mine).

So i will accept that Adam makes reference to our earthliness but never to say that the fall or man defiled the body of man itself so that now all we have to do is crucify our earthlines to set the man free as created in the image of God (Gen.1) before the fall in Gen. 3 occured (= man is basically good and therefore redeemable).

Please note that it was Lord God who said: "Adam where are you" and not God as first cause who just saw the fall of man fabricated in fiction to make Lord God co-creator with God and have this 'like god' (or third cause) here now first called Adam to be burdened later in life with the cross that Jesus carried. This then is where 'this' Adam who later is called Jesus dies to set Lord God free and be one with God once again . . . which then is how both the first and second Adam remain a figment of the imadination and the fictional character in the life of Man assigned to do his dirty work both coming and going.

From here I see the difference between the cross and the stake as being the difference between the kind of death wherein just the persona (or ego) is crucified on the cross or the man himself who is crucified on or by the stake.

Please note that there is nothing earthly about our body as man but indeed our mind can be defiled as human wherefore the hu- prefix was added to denote this earthly condition of being as found in Aristotles "Cathegories." So now to redeem man we only need to have our human condition severed and not the body of man itself (of course the ego can rapture but the question here becomes what we will be left with after that, cf Camus and Hardy for example wherein Hardy is timeless (with water) and Camus is contemporary (without water)).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.