Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-09-2013, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Imagine you are a militant and a Jewish zealot in the first century.

How would you react if your read the gospels?

Onias

In the 1st century there would be no gospels imagined or real.

aa,
This is a thought experiment (ala Einstein), meant to expand your mind to allow you to think "outside the box" for a moment.

thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment

Quote:

But I will rephrase the question:

If a zealot were to reincarnate or otherwise travel to a future after the gospels were written, how would he react to the gospel tales?
Onias

He might say that Jesus was created out of nothing existing.

He might say that the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men.

He might call the new testament Jesus story a monstrous tale.

But when brought into the presence of the emperor's agents he'd probably change his tune.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Onias · 05-10-2013, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

aa,
This is a thought experiment (ala Einstein), meant to expand your mind to allow you to think "outside the box" for a moment.

thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment

Quote:

But I will rephrase the question:

If a zealot were to reincarnate or otherwise travel to a future after the gospels were written, how would he react to the gospel tales?
Onias

He might say that Jesus was created out of nothing existing.

He might say that the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men.

He might call the new testament Jesus story a monstrous tale.

But when brought into the presence of the emperor's agents he'd probably change his tune.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Yes to the above, but don't ya think this zealot would be annoyed at how the gospel authors portrayed the messiah as peace-loving suck-up to the Romans?

Wouldn't he think of the Jesus messiah story as one that ridiculed the heroic efforts of so many historical messiah-aspirants who fought and died by crucifixion or slaughter?
Onias

maryhelena · 05-10-2013, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Wouldn't he think of the Jesus messiah story as one that ridiculed the heroic efforts of so many historical messiah-aspirants who fought and died by crucifixion or slaughter?
Onias

Onias, the effort of the Jewish fighters against Rome would be, as all fighters against foreign oppression, viewed as heroic. However, don't forget the very Jewish take on crucifixion, of being executed via a method of suspension. Such a one is cursed. (Deut: 21.23)

Quote:

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.

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

A crucified Jew is no cause for any sort of reverence or homage to the individual. It's a shameful death - a stumbling block that inhibits any sort of glorious accolade.

Perhaps it's worth keeping this Jewish reality in mind when considering the manner in which the 'rebel' element of the composite gospel JC figure has been, as it were, sidelined.

Yes, the Pauline writer shifted gears with his Christ crucified story - up a notch to a spiritual context. But that context does not negate the historical realities on the ground that involved the earthly Jerusalem - and the Hasmonean/Jewish conflict with Rome.

As that recent article on the Bible and Interpretation site highlights - there are echoes of a 'rebel' JC within that gospel story. And interestingly, both the JC historicists, and the mythicists, will find this aspect of the gospel JC story a bridge too far for their theories....i.e. their respective theories are unable to incorporate this 'rebel' element into their JC theories....

Quote:

Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/...er378008.shtml

Onias · 05-12-2013, 02:30 PM

Mary wrote:

Quote:

Onias, the effort of the Jewish fighters against Rome would be, as all fighters against foreign oppression, viewed as heroic. However, don't forget the very Jewish take on crucifixion, of being executed via a method of suspension. Such a one is cursed. (Deut: 21.23)

Wrong, Mary. That is the silly Pauline Xian view from Gal 3:13.
The crucifixion of 'Jesus' does not apply to a criminal who is killed and then hung on a tree overnight.
Onias

maryhelena · 05-12-2013, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Mary wrote:

Quote:

Onias, the effort of the Jewish fighters against Rome would be, as all fighters against foreign oppression, viewed as heroic. However, don't forget the very Jewish take on crucifixion, of being executed via a method of suspension. Such a one is cursed. (Deut: 21.23)

Wrong, Mary. That is the silly Pauline Xian view from Gal 3:13.
The crucifixion of 'Jesus' does not apply to a criminal who is killed and then hung on a tree overnight.
Onias

OK, Onias - how about supplying some Jewish sources that crucified Jewish rebels against Rome were exempt from the curse of Deut: 21.23.

Crucifixion is not an honorable death. Fighting against oppression is an honorable action. The honorable action of fighting against oppression does not remove the stigma, the curse, the tragedy, the shame, of a death via crucifixion.

Quote:

Page #188

2. The Crucified Brigand

A recurring theme in rabbinic narratives is that of the crucified brigand. Robbers, bandits, and rebels were frequently crucified in the Roman period (and before) ..... These terms can designate both individuals who use violence to steal as well as those criminals who band together in groups - perhaps "brigand" is the best English equivalent. From the clans of brigands frequently come the ranks of rebels, and this added greater impetus to Roman attempts at suppression. Crucifixion became a chief tool in these efforts.....

Page #195

In sum, each of these rabbinic texts displays ongoing Jewish awareness of
brigands being crucified by the authorities. The texts above are largely haggadic developments from both Tannaim and Amoraim. No sympathy is shown from any of these rabbis to the brigands. Rather, the brigands' wickedness is assumed, and their crucifixions appear to be a fitting consequence of their actions.

Page #224

1. The Crucified Brigand

Given the close association in both Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature of crucifixion with the execution of brigands (including violent rebels), it is hardly remarkable that Jesus was connected by certain later Roman authors with brigandage. Even some modern authors contend that Jesus was a revolutionary "Zealot" calling for violent, national revolt; or at least that he was sympathetic with contemporary religious insurrectionists.

While the evidence that the actual, historical Jesus was a violent Zealot remains quite scant, the impression created by some of his teachings, and by his gathering a band of disciples (including one explicitly labeled a "Zealot," Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), could have permitted ancient observers of the Jesus movement to label him an insurrectionist. Indeed, it is possible that the Jewish historian Josephus actually had concluded just that. And this label had all the more force when connected with Jesus' crucifixion amidst brigands.

Page #241

5. The Curse of the Cross

During his heated denouncement of an apparently heterodox Jewish-Christian theology, the Apostle Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:22-23 in Galatians 3:13: Neither the Hebrew nor the LXX is actually cited here. Instead, Paul paraphrases the text of Deuteronomy 21:23 in a way that parallels the cursing language of Deuteronomy 27:26 as cited in Galatians 3:10.. His paraphrase generally follows the early interpretation of Deuteronomy 21:23 found in the LXX - both envisage the "curse of God" in Deuteronomy to be God's cursing of all people who are hung on the tree (subjective genitive). Paul's argument contends that only faith in Christ can provide justification, since the crucifixion curse on Christ (3:13) serves as a viable exchange for the curse otherwise residing on those who are under law(3:10) It is in order to signal that connection between the two curses in Galatians 3:10 and 3:13 that Paul conforms his paraphrase of Deuteronomy 21:23 to the language of Deuteronomy 27:26 in Galatians 3:10.

For present purposes, the crucial assumption in Paul's argument is that the cursing of Deuteronomy 21:23 (in the sense of the subjective genitive supported by the LXX70 ) applies to the crucified person and hence to Jesus. Some have contended this hearkens back to what Paul would have believed prior to his conversion experience. Certainly, Paul as a converted Jewish follower of Jesus reverses the negative associations, which such a curse would have, into a positive understanding of the work of Christ on the cross.

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

Onias · 05-13-2013, 02:01 PM

Mary,
Although crucifixion is a shameful way to die. Deu 21:23 does not describe crucifixion.

Disposition of a Criminal’s Remains

21:22 If a person commits a sin punishable by death and is executed, and you hang the corpse on a tree, 21:23 his body must not remain all night on the tree; instead you must make certain you bury him that same day, for the one who is left exposed on a tree is cursed by God. You must not defile your land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
http://bible.org/netbible/

It is clear from the above that a person is first killed and then hung on a tree (not a cross) and if left on the tree all night it is accursed

Also for a Jewish view, see Eisenbaum at page 144-145 at
http://books.google.ca/books?id=ixb5...20view&f=false

Also note that your 'scholar' appears to be a Xian, so its not wonder he sees this through a Pauline Xian lens.

David W. Chapman

David W. Chapman (PhD, University of Cambridge) is associate professor of New Testament and archaeology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri

maryhelena · 05-13-2013, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Mary,
Although crucifixion is a shameful way to die. Deu 21:23 does not describe crucifixion.

Disposition of a Criminal’s Remains

21:22 If a person commits a sin punishable by death and is executed, and you hang the corpse on a tree, 21:23 his body must not remain all night on the tree; instead you must make certain you bury him that same day, for the one who is left exposed on a tree is cursed by God. You must not defile your land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
http://bible.org/netbible/

It is clear from the above that a person is first killed and then hung on a tree (not a cross) and if left on the tree all night it is accursed

Also for a Jewish view, see Eisenbaum at page 144-145 at
http://books.google.ca/books?id=ixb5...20view&f=false

Also note that your 'scholar' appears to be a Xian, so its not wonder he sees this through a Pauline Xian lens.

David W. Chapman

David W. Chapman (PhD, University of Cambridge) is associate professor of New Testament and archaeology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri

Onias, this is silly - Chapman's book is a very detailed scholarly investigation of crucifixion.

You mentioned two sources - neither of which I can access for any relevant evidence to support your position on Jewish views on Roman crucifixion of Jewish rebels in connection with Deut 21:23

Here are some more points from Chapman's book:

Quote:

Page #30

2.4 Summary: Crucifixion Terminology and Suspension

The preceding discussion should be sufficient to sustain the following general
statements:

(1) While one might be able to speak of a general method of crucifixion in Roman practice, in fact there were many variations on execution by suspension, though the same Latin and Greek terms designate both the variations and the (hypothetical?) norm.

Page #31

(5) However, in acknowledging differences among the languages here surveyed, it is quite likely that the similarity in application (mentioned above) of suspension terms in the various languages displays significant "cultural overlap" (to use a term from contemporary linguistics). In other words, the fact that Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic (and at times Latin) terminology for crucifixion does not inherently distinguish between ante-mortem and post-mortem suspension, and does not inevitably dictate the form of the object employed, might very well testify to a common cultural perception. Admittedly lexical semantics is not always a sufficient basis for determining cultural perceptions. Just because a single term does not exist for a certain concept, does not mean that a collection of terms cannot convey that concept. Certainly a cross shaped ante-mortem crucifixion could be designated in antiquity by a series of words. But most often the ancients did not seem to care to be so specific. Instead they appear content to associate multiple suspension forms as a single penalty. The fact that this occurs in several languages leads us to conclude that generally in antiquity the form of penal bodily suspension was less significant than the fact that body was being suspended.

Page #32

(6) Although words and concepts must not be confused, this word study evidence suggests a cautionary reminder about how to study crucifixion. It seems that crucifixion was often widely regarded in the ancient world as being within the general conceptual field of human bodily suspension. This point appears to me neglected in Baumgarten's studies considered above, and disregarded by those who would attempt to rigidly define crucifixion vis-à-vis other forms of suspension such that the associations of the one cannot partake of the associations of the other.

Certainly it was possible for the ancient authors to use a combination of terminology and context to designate "crucifixion" (English sense) as opposed to other forms of human bodily suspension; and likewise one could (again with appropriate contextual indicators) clearly delineate executionary suspension from a post-mortem penalty. The scholar must always be sensitive to individual lexical usage and other matters of style among the many sources. However, so often in the sources the context is not so determinative, the author's usage varies, and the reader is left to his or her own imagination as to the precise penal method employed.

This suggests that in studying the ancient world the scholar is wise not to differentiate too rigidly the categories of "crucifixion," "impalement," and "suspension" (as if these were clearly to be distinguished in every instance). Hence, any study of crucifixion conceptions in antiquity must grapple with the broader context of the wide variety of penal suspension of human beings.
One solution to the terminological complexities this produces in English would be to follow the Spanish approach of Diez Merino in labeling all acts of human bodily suspension as instances of "crucifixion" (only then distinguishing between forms of crucifixion: empalamiento, crucifixion ante mortem, exposicion del cadaver post mortem).123 However, following traditional English usage, we will continue to use "crucifixion" to mean the executionary suspension of a person on a cross-shaped object (allowing for a certain flexibility in shapes). Meanwhile "suspension" will serve as the broader term for the lifting up of a human body (living or dead) on some device for exposure.

Nevertheless, such an English divide between "crucifixion" and "suspension" should not be taken to indicate that these were perceived by people in antiquity (including Jewish people) as wholly different spheres of punishment. On the contrary, this discussion of terminology has sought to point out the likelihood that crucifixion on a cross was simply one specific form within the broader category of human bodily suspension. This dynamic goes a long way to explain how general references in the Hebrew Bible to suspended bodies could later be associated more specifically with crucifixion terminology (see chapter three). It also reminds us that perceptions associated in Jewish antiquity with any penal suspension of a human body could still very well inform ancient Jewish thoughts of crucifixion itself.

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

Crucifixion

Quote:

Terminology

Ancient Greek has two verbs for crucify: ana-stauro (ἀνασταυρόω), from stauros, "stake", and apo-tumpanizo (ἀποτυμπανίζω) "crucify on a plank." [3] together with anaskolopizo (ἀνασκολοπίζω "impale"). In earlier pre-Roman Greek texts anastauro usually means "impale."

For the instrument of crucifixion the word xylon (ξύλον) was sometimes used, a word applied to any object made of wood. Liddell and Scott classifies its meanings under five headings:

I. wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber (in these senses the word is usually in the plural);
II. piece of wood, log, beam, post or an object made of wood, such as a spoon, the Trojan horse, a cudgel or club, an instrument of punishment (a collar for someone's neck, stocks to confine his feet or to confine his neck, arms and legs, a gallows to hang him, or a stake to impale him), a table, a bench as in the theatre;
III. a tree
IV. a blockhead or a stubborn person;
V. a measure of length.

The English term cross derives from the Latin word crux. The Latin term crux literally means "in general, a tree, frame, or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged" and "in particular, a cross".

Notice #3...

Onias · 05-13-2013, 08:29 PM

Mary,
None of this Xian rhetoric is relevant to the OP.

Start another thread if you wish.

maryhelena · 05-13-2013, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Mary,
None of this Xian rhetoric is relevant to the OP.

Really? From the link in your OP:

Quote:

1. Jesus was tried and executed by a Roman official (Pontius Pilate) for treason against the state of Rome. This was a political crime, not a religious one, and Jesus received the punishment specifically reserved for treason under Roman law --crucifixion. Given that Rome punished traitors with crucifixion, Jesus' statement (as quoted in Mark vii:34) that "if any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me" had real meaning to his Jewish compatriots bristling under the onus of Roman rule. As Brandon (1967:145) notes, "The cross was the symbol of Zealot sacrifice before it was transformed into the sign of Christian Salvation."

http://www.drabruzzi.com/jesus_movement.htm

Roman execution of Jewish rebels via crucifixion is very much a part of any argument related to the gospel JC being viewed as a militant...:huh:

Onias · 05-16-2013, 01:17 PM

I have moved the crucifixion discussion to here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=324983

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

05-13-2013, 02:01 PM	#126
Onias Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Primary residence in New York State Posts: 231	Mary, Although crucifixion is a shameful way to die. Deu 21:23 does not describe crucifixion. Disposition of a Criminal’s Remains 21:22 If a person commits a sin punishable by death and is executed, and you hang the corpse on a tree, 21:23 his body must not remain all night on the tree; instead you must make certain you bury him that same day, for the one who is left exposed on a tree is cursed by God. You must not defile your land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. http://bible.org/netbible/ It is clear from the above that a person is first killed and then hung on a tree (not a cross) and if left on the tree all night it is accursed Also for a Jewish view, see Eisenbaum at page 144-145 at http://books.google.ca/books?id=ixb5...20view&f=false Also note that your 'scholar' appears to be a Xian, so its not wonder he sees this through a Pauline Xian lens. David W. Chapman David W. Chapman (PhD, University of Cambridge) is associate professor of New Testament and archaeology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri

05-13-2013, 08:29 PM	#128
Onias Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Primary residence in New York State Posts: 231	Mary, None of this Xian rhetoric is relevant to the OP. Start another thread if you wish.

05-16-2013, 01:17 PM	#130
Onias Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Primary residence in New York State Posts: 231	I have moved the crucifixion discussion to here: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=324983

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.