Asha'man

Just some speculation here, but Jewish writings appear to contain a story of a Jesus who was stoned to death and then hanged from a tree, perhaps around the year 75 BCE. This form of capital punishment appears to be the standard for crimes such as blasphemy, which is what this earlier Jesus was accused of.

I wonder if the 'hanged from a tree' portion of that story somehow morphed into a crucifixion?

The connection is pretty weak, since the Jewish form of punishment had already killed the victim before they were strung up, while the Roman punishment had a living victim on the cross for several days. But if there was a rumor or old story floating around about a guy 'ending up dead on a tree', it might be possible to shift the understanding from one to the other, either deliberately or accidentally.

I've also heard it suggested that the blame for killing Jesus was shifted back and forth from Jews to Romans to Jews, and transforming a hanging to a crucifixion might be a deliberate alteration to the story after the fact. As the story spread, larger alterations become more difficult, so the 2nd shift was done via a screwy trial sequence, rather than shifting the mode of death. The gospel accounts do have several story elements that fit well with a Jewish punishment, such as the Jewish trial finding Jesus guilty of blasphemy, Jesus being dead on the same day he's strung up, and the removal and burial of the body before nightfall. Perhaps these elements represent an incomplete editing of the story?

Chris Weimer

At the time, the crucifixion was mostly aimed more at revolutionaries - it would have been the perfect device for getting the point across that the one who died did so under Roman imperialism - an unwanted thing in Judea.

It makes perfect sense for someone to be crucified because they were preaching against the Romans, but because they were dying for the poor? I don't think you have a leg to stand on there.

Chris Weimer

Great! spin did so for me. Now hopefully we won't be hearing any more from you about the language of the documents.

Chris Weimer

Are you seriously saying that Paul is unique in using complex metaphors and symbols? I'm dumbstruck. Have you read anything?

Dreadnought

You're right, I don't as Tertulian or Epiphanius presumably were adding details to the history of the Ebionites from a position of hostility while the Jesus myth appears to have grown from believing sources I don't see the relevance here. If there is one then feel free to point it out.

It would clearly matter if it was there. If it isn't one needs to look elsewhere for the source.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin,

Ignoring the argumentum ad homimen ("It is plain from Jay's sophistry that he hasn't as yet learnt"), I agree that the writers of the epistles of Paul were using terms in their common sense for the time of their writing. The question is "What were their common senses at that period of time?" While, I believe that one can occassionally find "stavros" used to mean "cross," in the first century C.E. and before, its more common meaning would be "stave," "post" and "self-denial." It was in the later centuries C.E., and with the spread of gospel literature and Christianity, that "Stavros" came to commonly mean the "cross" used in Christ's execution.

Thusly, under my supposition, we may translate Philippians 2:8:

he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death -- even the death of self-denial.


This is based on Paul's references to Jesus Christ as the Suffering Servant type and on Strong's Greek Dictionary definition:

4716 stauros, from the base of ίστημι - histemi 2476; a stake or post (as set upright), i.e. (specially), a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment); figuratively, exposure to death, i.e. self-denial; by implication, the atonement of Christ:--cross.

4717 stauroo, from σταυρός - stauros 4716; to impale on the cross; figuratively, to extinguish (subdue) passion or selfishness:--crucify.

I did not make up the position that "Stavros" is used metaphorically by the author of the Epistles of Paul. It is also the belief of devout Christians. This is from the BELIEVE Religious Information Source: *a collection of over 7,000 articles by respected scholars on around 2,300 religious subjects*.)

(http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/cross.htm)

Cross (noun)
Advanced Information

Cross denotes, primarily, "an upright pale or stake." On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, "to fasten to a stake or pale, " are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed "cross." The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith.

In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the "cross" of Christ. As for the Chi, or X, which Constantine declared he had seen in a vision leading him to champion the Christian faith, that letter was the initial of the word "Christ" and had nothing to do with "the Cross" (for xulon, "a timber beam, a tree, " as used for the stauros). The method of execution was borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians.

The stauros denotes (a) "the cross, or stake itself, " e.g., Matt. 27:32; (b) "the crucifixion suffered, " e.g., 1 Cor. 1:17-18, where "the word of the cross, " RV, stands for the gospel; Gal. 5:11, where crucifixion is metaphorically used of the renunciation of the world, that characterizes the true Christian life; 6:12, 14; Eph. 2:16; Phil. 3:18.

Note, these Christians believe that Paul used the term "Stavros" metaphorically sometimes, and list five cases (Gal. 5:11, 6:12,14, Eph. 2:16, and Phil. 3:18). All I am suggesting is that the epistle writer/s were consistent and used it metaphorically all of the time. I contend that the surrounding text of the usages supports this supposition.

You may wish to proceed by giving unambiguous examples of the pre-Second century use of Stavros to mean a cross used in crucifixion.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spin

Tertullian and Epiphanius were almost certainly giving the information that their traditions provided them (though over a century apart). Reading their texts one gets the idea that they accepted the reality of Ebion. The figure was certainly no myth to them, yet at the same time, we know that Ebion was not a historical figure either. However, between the time of Tertullian and that of Epiphanius the tradition had developed with regard to Ebion. This is a historical version of Chinese whispers. You don't need to posit the notion that a figure is mythical for the tradition to be embellished. It's just the nature of traditions.

It may have been obvious given the "vision" that Paul had that there was a salvific figure called Jesus. I don't know what the messianists in Judea believed but we know they apparently weren't too impressed with Paul's gospel, nor he in theirs (if we can glean this from Gal 1-2). His gospel didn't come from them, but by the time the first gospel was written there was a lot more to the tradition that seems to have been started by Paul. The other synoptic gospels, by rewriting Mark added more traditions.

Paul didn't get his information about Jesus from humans, nor did he learn it: it was direct revelation. Hey, he might have got it from god himself (if he exists), but there is no objective way for even Paul to validate the vision.

Is there any need to insinuate myth into this process? There is certainly no sign in the Ebion story, yet Ebion is not historical -- despite Tertullian's belief that he was.

You seem to want to insinuate myth into the Jesus story. Why?


spin

storytime

From a Jewish perspective, it didn't make sense then nor does it now. (I'm not Jewish,btw)

Debating philosophies in those days might have included several forms of "death" to make a point of how separation from the body of Judaism could occur. Treason and denial of the Jewish god by way of disobedience to laws and/or allowing an alliance type belief to be tolerated. God commanded physical death to Jews who spoke to non Jews. "speaking" had its meaning in discussion of laws with non Jews. "It is not meant that the childrens bread be given to dogs" as Jesus pointed out that he was not sent to any but the children of Israel in sons of Jacob. This eliminated billions of people from his kingdom.

spin

Don't ignore it, Jay. It simply wasn't "argumentum ad homimen". When you cite Strongs you merely demonstrate my point. You are unaware of the tools and the processes you are trying to deal with. Philology and linguistics require study. You know the the adage, "the more I know, the more I know I don't know". You apparently haven't got to that stage. You need to know something about the subject to talk about it meaningfully.

While stauros originally did mean "stake" and object on which one is crucified was derivative, but you are simply inventive when you add "self-denial". Please refer to Liddell and Scott. A print edition would be more useful, otherwise read this.

Wrong. Diodorus (2.18) uses stauros intending cross. Polybius (1.86.4) uses the verb staurow, so it was in use well before christianity.

Stillborn, Jay. It's not based on any evidence whatsoever.


spin

Dreadnought

I consider the Jesus stories to be myths according to a standard definition of myth as given here, particularly 2 and 3, but all of them apply to some extent:
This has nothing to do with what I want or not, but rather what I consider to be the case. If the heart of this is that Jesus is a man then the story of his resurrection and being the son of God etc can safely be labelled as myths. If there never even was a crucified man called Jesus who was thought to be the Christ then the person Jesus is also a myth.

You're implying that this is controversial in some sense. Why?