vijeno

Not if they themselves were convinced that the crucifixion was true. Or if the number of outsiders who thought so was large enough to make a counterargument unfeasable. The crucifixion might just have been added in-between to spice things up, by someone who wanted to lay blame on the romans, or to make the story more similar to some other myth, or whatever. And by the way, can we say with any certainty that Paul (or someone before him) came up with that shameful/triumphant reframing because of outside intervention?

Of course, the simplest explanation is probably the best, and the simplest explanation might be that the crucifixion actually took place... but there will always be huge room for doubt.

Well it seems to me there was a lot of extremism going around, and quite some hatred against rome. I can easily imagine that they didn't care much for the roman authorities, at least at the start. Just speculation, of course.

Another one that has bugged me for some time now: "The crucifixion was considered the most shameful death" is one huuuuge generalization. I find it hard to believe that every last one jew, all through their whole lives, only ever felt exactly this way. Wasn't crucifixion extremely popular with the romans, and the romans were the enemy? So maybe the first christians were some of those who saw crucifixion not so much as a shame for the victim, but for the romans?

Again, speculation of course. Not that I have any idea whether such a view could be derived from any source; but again, the sources seem to be so bad as to make resisting the temptation of speculation almost impossible, at least for me.

archibald

As Richard Carrier puts it, it was probably a very negative thing to a lot of people, including a lot of Jews, but (obviously) not offputtingly so to the ones who signed up.

My guess would be that even to those, it wouldn't have been an ideal denouement, but if they believed it to be true, then they could accomodate it and rationalize it, and see it, as you say, as shameful for the perpetrators and not the victim.

Horatio Parker

Some think that there traditions that Jesus escaped crucifixion and point to Simon of Cyrene as a remnant of that tradition.

And, as long as we're speculating, couldn't they have motivated by disgust of crucifixion?

Herod the Great once crucified 800 rebels. It wasn't an exclusively Roman punishment.

andrewcriddle

Alexander Jannaeus not Herod.

josephus/ant-13 Andrew Criddle

Horatio Parker

One of them has more knee ands.

aa5874

Once you also understand there was a tradition that Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost, God and the Creator then Speculation is just wasting time.

The crucifixion of a non-historical character is meaningless.

Nothing is achieved when YOU speculate.

Horatio Parker

Belief in a fictional crucifixion of a fictional character is not meaningless when entire societies are affected by it.

It's our time to waste.

There are other things to speculate about than HJ/MJ.

I may accomplish nothing when I speculate, but I surely don't accomplish anything when I don't.

aa5874

In order words, you accomplish nothing.

Horatio Parker

I'll take that as a compliment. Many things escape your myopia.

JonA

I believe the resurrection itself would be considered the 'triumph'. The crucifixion would still be the same old same old; perhaps no longer viewed as 'shameful', but rather 'necessary'.

Jon