Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 09-13-2011, 05:18 AM

Thanks dog-on. I had missed that. Now that I recheck maryhelena's quote, it said 'cross'.

That does indeed seem to at least resemble crucifixion. Particularly the reference to no other king having been killed that way by the Romans. I am going to file that under 'very interesting indeed' and wonder why I hadn't heard it cited before:]

dog-on · 09-13-2011, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Thanks dog-on. I had missed that. Now that I recheck maryhelena's quote, it said 'cross'.

That does indeed seem to at least resemble crucifixion. Particularly the reference to no other king having been killed that way by the Romans. I am going to file that under 'very interesting indeed' and wonder why I hadn't heard it cited before:]

Yea, it's a good one.

What I am not sure about is whether, or not the word used is actually a form of 'stauroo', or something else. I do not have a Greek version to check.

archibald · 09-13-2011, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Everyone except bible believing Christians admits that the gospel Jesus is a myth.....

Really, really not sure about your choice of words here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

..... but the historical Jesus guild claims that there is a historical core to the myth, which they call the historical Jesus. But how close to the gospel story does this guy have to be? If he lived 100 years BCE or wasn't crucified or didn't have anything to do with founding or inspiring the Christian church, is that really the historical Jesus?

It is, as you say, a question of degree, or a question of what may reasonably be allowed to represent a 'core HJ'. If the gospel stories were really badly wrong, I agree it wouldn't be worth using the term Historical Jesus in relation to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And Paul clearly does not care about any aspect of Jesus except his crucifixion and resurrection.

I can agree with that, but it is still not concise for anyone to say that the gospel Jesus is the only historical Jesus that we know about. And I don't mean to suggest that Paul's Jesus WAS historical. The validity of an account doesn't take away the fact that the account (however brief) is there in the first place (I mean extant, obviously). Same goes for gospels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

One obscure and ambiguous verse in Paul has Jesus crucified by "the powers of this age" at an undisclosed location. Another claims that the Jews were responsible, but almost everyone things the latter is an interpolation.

As you may have realized, I am not yet persuaded that Paul had his Jesus crucified off-planet. I have given reasons already. Reference to ambiguities doesn't do it for me, apart from anything else.

But, that wasn't my question. Why was Jesus crucified?

Even if it was off-planet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What is over-egging?

It's an idiom, for exaggerate. Has to do with putting too much egg in a pudding. :]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think that roughly 50% of Paul's letters were added by a later editor, so what's two interpolations?

Nothing. Two interpolations would be small beer (with eggs or not as preferred :]) if you are thinking in terms of 50% total additions. I had no idea that was your hypothesis. Makes me wonder why we even bothered with trying to justify 1 Cor 15 3-11 as an individual passage.

Now, I AM going to have to ask you for evidence. :]

archibald · 09-13-2011, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

What I am not sure about is whether, or not the word used is actually a form of 'stauroo', or something else. I do not have a Greek version to check.

It is definitely worth checking, IMO. Unfortunately, I am very busy today and going off line. The idea that a rebel Jewish king may have been crucified, not long prior. I have to admit I'm very curious about that. If true, it would seem to constitute a potential precedent that I had not heard of before.

I read (on wiki only, I'm afraid) that both Josephus and Plutarch refer to beheading instead?

Ciao.

A.

avi · 09-13-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

In the first instance, it is simple, plain fact that you do not know, and yet you still claim to be certain. That's a contradiction in terms.

My argument depends upon the notion, perhaps erroneous, that Paul was a knowledgeable, well educated Jew. We, not Paul, find it incongruous that Jesus was NEITHER a messiah, NOR a "cristou". We are incredulous, because this notion is completely contrary to what we have been taught.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

However, I already said that I am not averse to your idea that the word itself, Christou, could have been a later usage and that the original term was something else.

I am not suggesting that there was a different word there, in the text of the epistle. I am suggesting that the entire phrase, represents an interpolation. My point is that a SUBSEQUENT editor/redactor/scribe, or senior official, perhaps someone ignorant of Hebrew, inserted Cristou. It's a bit like garlic, isn't it? You start out with just a bit, then a bit more, until finally, now, the only food I eat without garlic is chocolate. Some of Paul's letters have got "Cristou" just about every other word.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

And of course, it's true that 'Christou' and 'Messiah' are not the same word.
But oddly, in your last paragraph, you are saying something further. You are now saying.....that it couldn't have been 'Messiah' either?

Sure not. Impossible.

Paul was a knowledgeable JEW, Archibald. He certainly knew the distinction, in Hebrew, between "annointed" --> "mashiach", and "messiah" --> "massiah", just as you know the distinction between "ground" and "round". The words sound similar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

So I have to ask you again, how do you know when the followers first began to think of him as a Messiah?

That, I hope, is a simple question.

No one knows the answer to this, Archibald. There is nothing "simple" about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Because the blunt fact is similar to 'Christou'. In that case it was a term used, despite your correct it seems observation that he never was annointed in the real world, so whether it happened in the real world or not is irrelevant.

In the former case (messiah) it also happened, despite him not being the sort of Messiah that some appeared to be expecting, so that 'fact' is again irrelevant.

So your reasoning is stuck in a contradiction. You know both happened. You don't know when. But you are certain it wasn't early.

Not at all. A Messiah was a person who rode a white horse, leading thousands of faithful Jews against an army of infidels. This is certainly NOT something accomplished by an historical, nor mythical, person, named Jesus of Nazareth/Capernaum, etc....

Annointment ("cristou") is accomplished by, of, and for, the MASSES of true believers. Never happened for Jesus. He was executed, among ordinary criminals, in a very uncrowded ceremony, according to the legend written in the Gospels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Finally, I already also said that you can keep it to just 'Jesus' if you want. It seems to make no difference to anything major for me. Maybe you want to change that too? In fact, since I believe it means 'saviour', I can see that it might be consistent for you. Same thinking process perhaps. We don't know when anyone came to think of him as their saviour, so it was later. Maybe Paul's original word was 'Aaron'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Nazarene Way

In Hebrew Yeshua means Salvation while the name Jesus has no intrinsic meaning in English whatsoever.

So, in Hebrew, Yeshua means salvation, not "saviour".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In the 1st century, Philo of Alexandria, in a Greek exposition, offered this understanding of Moses’s reason for the name change of the biblical hero Jehoshua/Joshua son of Nun from Hoshea [similar to hoshia` meaning "He rescued"] to Yehoshua in commemoration of his salvation: "And Ιησους refers to salvation of the Lord" [Ιησους or Iesous being the Greek form of the name] (Ἰησοῦ δὲ σωτηρία κυρίου) (On the Change of Names 21.121).

Maybe Paul's original word was not Aaron, but

Quote:

Yeshua, (ישוע, with vowel pointing יֵשׁוּעַ yēšūă‘ in Hebrew)[1] was a common alternative form of the name Joshua "Yehoshuah" יְהוֹשֻׁעַ in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple Period. The name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which comes the English spelling Jesus.

avi

maryhelena · 09-13-2011, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

What I am not sure about is whether, or not the word used is actually a form of 'stauroo', or something else. I do not have a Greek version to check.

It is definitely worth checking, IMO. Unfortunately, I am very busy today and going off line. The idea that a rebel Jewish king may have been crucified, not long prior. I have to admit I'm very curious about that. If true, it would seem to constitute a potential precedent that I had not heard of before.

I read (on wiki only, I'm afraid) that both Josephus and Plutarch refer to beheading instead?

Ciao.

A.

Interesting indeed - not only that Cassius Dio mentions Antigonus in connection with a cross --------------------but that Josephus is silent. Imagine if Josephus did reference Antigonus as being bound to a cross - would not the game be up? The connection between history and the gospel JC story would be plain for all to see, ie Antigonus as a model for the gospel crucifixion story. Interestingly, however, Josephus does give us a tall tale re the three crucified men after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 c.e. - Josephus gets permission to take down the men but two die while the third recovers. Thus, suggesting a possibility, that Antigonus, after being bound to the cross and flogged, was taken down alive from the cross and later beheaded.......

As to what Greek word has been used for 'cross' - I have no idea. However, here is an interesting quote:

Quote:

Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion by 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”.

Page 70

The penalty was certainly among the worst possible punishments, being specifically treated in several places as the greatest misfortune to befall a man. In Roman literature, barbarian peoples are frequently said to crucify, thus insinuating a kind of barbarous feel to the penalty. Lately, many writers have emphasized the great shame attached to such a penalty - a naked man, beaten and ridiculed, hanging for all to see while he slowly dies, his carcass becoming food for birds.

Beheading would, therefore, be a far more 'civilized' method of execution.

footnote: the *********denote Greek words - so one will have to look at either the amazon or the google book view to read them.....

(and no, I don't think Antigonus = a historical gospel JC. I do think, however, that the death of Antigonus, the manner of that death, was used as a 'model' for the crucifixion element in the gospel JC story.)

dog-on · 09-13-2011, 07:24 AM

MaryHelena, at the very least, there was some decent material for Mark to work with, laying about...

maryhelena · 09-13-2011, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

MaryHelena, at the very least, there was some decent material for Mark to work with, laying about...

:thumbs:

Doug Shaver · 09-13-2011, 09:25 AM

OK, Don, I think the logic of your objection is finally clicking in my mind, in a general sense. And consequently, I think I see where you're making a mistake. But, it's going to take me a while to parse your observations in enough detail to put together a tidy response. With a little luck, I'll have something ready to post by sometime tomorrow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I seem to have forgotten where Doherty says he starts anything with that notion. Maybe you can refresh my memory?

Sure. I give an example in my review of Doherty's "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man":
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...M_Review1.html

A final example: Doherty warns that it is a mistake to read Gospel events into the writings of Paul and other early letters. He states that even “critical scholars now agree” that Jesus' deeds “could not possibly have matched those of the Gospel story” (page 21) and that “critical scholarship... has begun to admit that much of the Gospel story... is indeed fabrication” (page 82). And yet, Doherty finds significance in Gospel details that are missing in Paul:

The descent of the dove into Jesus would have provided the perfect parallel to Paul's belief that at baptism the Holy Ghost descended into the believer. The voice of God welcoming Jesus as his Beloved Son could have served to symbolize Paul's contention (as in Romans 8:14-17) that believers have been adopted as sons of God. (Page 65)
I doubt very much that critical scholarship would expect to find the Gospel story of the dove descending on Jesus in Paul, given that Paul states that Jesus was appointed Son of God by his resurrection from the dead rather than by his baptism (as seen in Mark). It might give fundamentalists food for thought, but would any critical scholar be concerned by the lack of that particular Gospel story in Paul?

... if Doherty wants his theories to be addressed by critical scholarship, then surely he should be focusing on points raised by critical scholarship rather than those raised by Christian apologists.

Doherty underlines his approach when he writes:

Throughout this book, in the course of examining the silence in the epistles on the life and teachings of Jesus, we will look at all of the Gospel elements, without discrimination. This will include those which critical scholarship has cast doubt on, or even totally rejected—such as the apocalyptic sayings or the existence of Judas. (Page 28)
Evaluating elements that critical scholarship has already rejected does not seem a fruitful endeavour, especially if Doherty wants his work to be taken seriously by that same critical scholarship.

That's one of the reasons why people argue Doherty should write a paper for peer-review. It's not even to get it to peer-review. It's to get him to remove all the crap apologetics-facing arguments he brings up in his book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Do you think it reasonable, on the historicist assumption, to suppose that the gospels were partly accurate? If so, is it not reasonable to think Paul would have been aware of whatever facts of Jesus' life were accurately recorded in the gospels?

Yes, I agree. But without knowing exactly what parts, how do you know what Paul should have been aware of? Obviously for Doherty's argument above about the dove to work, he has to first assume that the story of the dove in Mark had been in circulation before Paul wrote. Is that a reasonable assumption, in your view? Is there any evidence to support such an assumption?

Doug Shaver · 09-13-2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

(speaking out of turn again)

Not really. When I want to go one on one with anybody, I use e-mail.

My response to the rest of your post will have to wait a bit. My bedtime is approaching.

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

09-13-2011, 05:18 AM	#481
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	Thanks dog-on. I had missed that. Now that I recheck maryhelena's quote, it said 'cross'. That does indeed seem to at least resemble crucifixion. Particularly the reference to no other king having been killed that way by the Romans. I am going to file that under 'very interesting indeed' and wonder why I hadn't heard it cited before:]

09-13-2011, 07:24 AM	#487
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	MaryHelena, at the very least, there was some decent material for Mark to work with, laying about...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.