GakuseiDon

That's right. The pre-Christian pagans didn't understand the Old Testament's symbolism, which is Justin's reason for why none of the Roman gods were depicted as being crucified.

Er, no. You've screwed up Justin's meaning here. Justin isn't saying that at all. This is what he writes:

But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically.

You wrote that "the pre-Christian Pagans recognized that this motif was not literal but symbolic", but Justin is saying the complete opposite: they didn't recognise the motif BECAUSE it was symbolic.

Tertullian provided parallels, and Acharya misread them.

For example, Tertullian writes that the Romans used banners set on a cross-shape with materials draped on them giving them "robes" (as per the picture above). But Acharya writes that Tertullian attested that the Romans "possessed gods themselves in cruciform". That's a misreading of Tertullian's parallel.

The thing to keep in mind is that Tertullian and Justin were trying to justify the shape of the cross as being worthy of worship. They find various cross-like shapes to show this. I've described above how they used the examples of Roman banners and the frame used to sculpture their statues, but Justin gives even more examples in his First Apology, and how the cross-shape is beneficial to the Romans:

1. The shape of the mast that a sail is draped on ("For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship")
2. The shape of tools used by diggers and mechanics to plough the earth ("the earth is not ploughed without it... except with tools which have this shape").

aa5874

There is a passage in Antiquities of the Jews 18 that gives an indication of the Jews' views with respect to worshipping images of Caesar.

The Jews would rather have their necks chopped off than worsip images of Caesar during the very time of the so-called blasphemer Jesus who was supposedly sacrificed to the God of the Jews and was worshipped as a God for salvation.

Their views may have been similar to Philo's. It is abominable to worship a man as a God or his images.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.1 Sometime later, in Rome, Philo, representing the Jews on his embassy to Rome, would convey a similar view to Gaius.

ph2ter

The cross shaped banners really have the same symbolism as has the cross on which Jesus was hanging.
Both symbolize the world tree which can be sometimes displayed really as a tree and sometimes as a pole, spear or cross. That was understood by the first Christians and exactly because of that the Acts can say that Jesus was hanging on a tree. Displaying ancient deities on a world tree was in general use in almost all mythologies. The Christians introduced nothing new and unusual.

Toto

But that's what I'm trying to say. The Romans did not portray their gods as crucified in the sense of "punished for insurrection by being strung up on a cross", but they did portray them in a cruciform position. (Freke and Gandy I think have some actual pictures of Dionysus on a pole. There is no real implication that he was "crucified," but he is propped up and his arms are stretched out.)

This visual image is sufficient for the argument. You can add in elements like the World Tree or the crossing of the astrological arcs or other symbolism to put icing on the cake. Jungians and folklorists love these broad parallels that are supposed to reflect some inner archetype. I can tell that it's not your thing.

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure about the cross shaped banners symbolizing the world tree. More likely it was the easiest way to display a square piece of material.

GakuseiDon

I have their book in front of me now. They have photographs of two vases, both depicting a mask of Dionysus on a pole with leafy branches. There are no arms.

Here is a picture of one of them:


As I said, first the data, then the analysis. If you could find any gods depicted in cruciform, that would be helpful.

Here's evidence for the Pillsbury Doughboy Crucified! Obviously representative of some inner archetype:

Solo

You are missing my point. Paul is arguing with a Corinthian faction on Jesus' resurrection, and says in effect (1 Cr 15:16) that Christ is dead, if there is no resurrection from the dead. This means almost certainly that the fact, or mythical event of crucifixion, was not disputed at Corinth, since Paul would have had to address it also. Now, if the event originated in myth as maryhelena believes, then the "god rising" part of it would have been optional, which defeats her argument.

meaning ?

Jiri

fatpie42

So, the Corinthian faction also believes in the crucifixion, but presumably does not believe that their God can die. Their argument is theological in character.

Paul is not arguing that the resurrection must be accepted because he has witnesses to it. He is arguing that the resurrection must be accepted in order for Christ to remove sin. As such, the whole argument has its basis in theology, not history. The same would be true of the crucifixion.

Sure the crucifixion was a powerful symbol, but that does not dismiss maryhelena's claim that the crucifixion was only appealing as a theological idea rather than a historical one.

fatpie42

But Jews didn't say that God was a burning bush. Also we can hardly imagine the claim that Moses saw God's back to be literal. God's appearances always seem to be in the form of angel messengers e.g. God wrestling with Jacob.

The difference with Jesus is that they are claiming that God is actually a man. This statement is more concerned with explaining how God can be a man and yet also be transcendent i.e. it is reconciling the God-man with Judaism, not dismissing Judaism.

Amaleq13

No, that provides an indication of the Jews' views with respect to placing an image of Caesar in the Temple. That doesn't help you generalize Philo's view to anyone but Philo as far as I can tell.

Isn't there a passage in Josephus where he describes the reaction to a man who claimed to be God? I'll have to check my Crossan books when I get home. I know he relates a passage describing the apathetic reaction to the man proclaiming the coming destruction of Jerusalem but I thought there was another more analogous to what we are discussing.

I wouldn't be surprised if Philo agreed with them that placing the image of Caesar in the Temple was unacceptable.

But that doesn't help support your claim.

In fact, nothing can support your claim because it is an example of the logical fallacy known as Hasty Generalization.

There was apparently no monolithic "Jewish view" on just about anything (ie interpretations of what was acceptable varied).

The Gospels indicate the notion gained little traction with Jews. John explicitly states that even some who initially believed left the fold.