la70119

Well we know where the traditional cross came from, besides (or maybe instead of) Roman execution practices:

Justin Martyr, I Apology 55 (Symbols of the Cross)

There were Latin Crosses around at that time, and they were thoroughly pagan and 'idolatrous'. They were known to one and all as tropaea. This is probably the real reason why Christians before Constantine weren't all that interested in the sign of the (Latin) cross and the attendant crucifix.

la70119

Yes, the text could be Alexandrian, but if the Aramaic therein is Samaritan, how can Marqe be Philo? Remember, Philo was recorded as being Jewish. He would know Judean Aramaic.

stephan huller

But what's so specifically Jewish about Philo? It's almost exclusively Pentateuch references. And Marqe is a unique figure among the Samaritans. What is a Dosithean? Perhaps an Alexandrian Samaritan.

stephan huller

The other interesting thing I found are a number of allusions to the christogram being used by ancients to highlight 'useful' passages in books, in other words that it began as a sign for chrestos not christos. From Senator Cassiodorus's works:

Of course Cassiodorus lived long after Christianity was established. Yet who in their right mind could argue that Christians adapted the holy symbol of Christ (chi-rho) to signify chrestos. Clearly the practice antedates the Christian religion. Now start thinking about Jesus being crucified on this symbol and you'll start to see what is being referenced ...

stephan huller

Now that we know that Jesus was nailed to a chresimon or chrestos symbol there is an interesting literary reference in the LXX which is worth considering:

What are the odds that the gospel narrative has Judas selling Jesus (one from the twelve?) while Genesis has Judas selling Joseph (one from the twelve)? And then look the twelve (and their associates) assume Joseph is dead:

and then as we all know, there is 'resurrection' narrative where - like the gospel - everyone stands around talking to the 'dead man' not realizing his true identity:

and then of course Joseph finally tells them the truth:

This is obviously the core of the gospel narrative. This is why I tend to despise most 'mythers' they bring all these extraneous myths about Osiris and pagan gods into a discussion about the origins of Christianity when the real core of the gospel is rooted in the Pentateuch. Yes these are myths. But why do we ignore the myths that actually form the literary context for the narrative (i.e. the Jewish ones) in favor of the pagan ones? Because it's too much work.

stephan huller

In any event, let's take a Marcionite look at the similarities and differences here. In the Pentateuch Judas spares the brother seeing there is no χρήσιμον in such an act of blood shed. Yet Judas's sparing of Joseph ends up saving the nation of Israel. I am not sure what the original gospel narrative had with respect to Judas and Jesus. I have always been partial to the Islamic apocryphal notion that somehow Jesus and Judas switched places. The reason for this is that the narrative is known to the Patristic writers and the rabbinic sources.

Nevertheless let's just leave that an open question and notice that Jesus appeared crucified on a big χρήσιμον symbol - i.e. he gets impaled on the main pole (= rho) and his limbs get 'spread out' on an x (= chi). There has to be a reason for this (other than of course the obvious solution - i.e. 'because this is what happened in 'real history'). Why was sacrificing Jesus (or alternatively Jesus substituting Judas for himself) χρήσιμον? Useful for what or whom?

stephan huller

χρήσι^μ-ος , η, ον, also ος, ον X.Mem.3.8.8, Pl.Grg.480b, R.333b: (χράμαι):—
A. useful, serviceable, first in Thgn.406; “εἰς ἀνάγκαν, ἔνθ᾽ οὐ ποδὶ χρησίμῳ χρῆται” S.OT878 (lyr.); τὸ χ. φρενῶν the excellence of . . , E.Ph.1740 (lyr.); “τὸ αὐτίκα χ.” Th.3.56; “ἡ διὰ τὸ χ. φιλία” Arist.EN1159b13; “τὰ χ.” Men.Mon.579; χ. εἴς τι useful for something, Hdt.4.109, Ar.Pl.493 (anap.), Pl.R.l. c.; ἐπί τι Id.Grg. l. c.; “πρός τι” E.Hipp.482 (Comp.); “ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ χ. καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινοῦ ὠφέλιμα” X.Cyr.6.2.34; “τοῦτ᾽ οὖν τί ἐστι χρήσιμον;” Ar.Nu.202; χρήσιμόν ἐστι, c. inf., Id.Av.382 (troch.).
2. of persons, serviceable, useful, S.Aj.410, D.20.7, etc.; Comp. “-ώτερος” Pl.Lg.819c: esp., like χρηστός, a good and useful citizen, “χ. πόλει” E.Or.910; “χ. πολίτης” Eup.118; “χ. τινι” Is.Fr.16.1; “ἐπί τι” D.25.31; τοὺς εὐπόρους δεῖ χ. αὑτοὺς παρέχειν τοῖς πολίταις to show themselves useful, serviceable to the state, Id.42.22, cf. E.Supp.887, Is.Fr.10.1 (Comp.); τοῖς σώμασι -ώτεροι more able-bodied, X.Lac.5.9; opp. ἀργαλέος τὴν ὄψιν, Aeschin.1.61.
3. used, made use of, τέμενος -ώτατον a muchfrequented sanctuary, dub. in Hdt.2.178.
4. χρησίμη διαθήκη an available (i.e. authentic) will, Is.6.30.
5. νομίσματα οὐ χρήσιμα ἔξω money that will not pass abroad, X.Vect.3.2.
II. Adv., -μως ἔχειν to be serviceable, Th.3.44, X.Cyr.8.5.9; χ. τινὶ σωθῆναι with advantage to him, Th.5.91, cf. J.BJ6.2.9; “τὰ -μως λεγόμενα” Plu. 2.36d.

stephan huller

Remember the sign hanging on the crucified one says he was king Judas (= king of the Jews). I think I can argue that the Hebrew 'king of the Jews' was also read as 'king Judas.' Let's not forget too that Pilate was understood to have arranged for the chi-rho and the sign. That's why some of the Copts venerate him as a saint and all the orthodox venerate his wife.

DCHindley

Ia,

Isn't it the consensus among Philo scholars (e.g., Wolfson, Runia, etc) that he only knew Greek, and had no Hebrew skills at all? If, as you say, he knew "Judean Aramaic," how far would it have been for a man of his intellect to learn Hebrew? Conversely, I am inclined to say that if he didn't know Hebrew, he didn't know Aramaic.

This is interesting, as Sethian gnostics certainly did know Aramaic/Hebrew, but seem to have written in Greek. Critics can tell they did by means of the semiticisms they used and words they chose to transliterate. They, it seems, were Jewish imports into Greek environments, learning the language to express their frustrations with the paternal god and faith. Philo, on the other hand, grew up in a thoroughly Greek environment and never learned his ancestral language(s).

DCH

la70119

What? You have never read even a portion of Embassy to Gaius? You have never read In Flaccum? isn't he defending his own people in these works?

True, all his surviving works are only in Greek. If he knew not Hebrew or Aramaic, then he wouldn't know Samaritan dialect of Aramaic either. Of course, this would collapse Stephan Huller's argument that Philo = Marqe.