gstafleu

I'm not sure if "just a figure of speech" does do right to the passage. Just as the original lamb's blood had a saving function (to ensure that the Jews were not slaughtered by a rather genocidal YHWH), so the blood of the more recent lamb saves the current believers from the wrath of God, i.e. from general badness. But it is the new blood that counts, hence forget about the old yeast "of malice and wickedness," i.e. the Jewish way of doing things, the Law, and do things the new way. So the lamb is more than a figure of speech.

Does this necessarily mean that Paul thought that Jesus was crucified at or near (never mind a single day!) Passover? No, it doesn't, but it does make it a reasonable guess. It would enhance the symbolism, and that is always a good thing in myth.

BTW, the passage looks a bit out of place, doesn't it? It comes smack in the middle of a discussion about porneia (Paul's modernism apparently did know some limits). It would make more sense in 1 Cor 4.

Gerard Stafleu

TedM

Perhaps, but how many unlikely things are there here?

1. Preacher decides to go to Jerusalem on week of Passover

More probable than not. First, it is a holy day, so all the more reason a preacher would go. Second, the passover was attended by huge numbers of regular folks anyway.

2. Decides to turns over a few tables in the synagogue

His preaching is described as being highly concerned with the hypocracy of the religious leaders with regard to their actions, specifically the lining of their own pockets at the expense of the poor. The same concern for the poor is found in Paul's letters when he refers to the 'saints' in Jerusalem, and it is found in the espistle of James, the first leader of the Christians in Jerusalem. MONEY was a big issue with them.

IF this man had such a philosophy, it is not at all improbable that he demonstrated his outrage in this or a similar manner.


3. Get himself arrested and condemned for blasphemy..

Those in power, when threatened, will look for reasons to arrest and condemn. This reaction on the part of religious leaders whom he preached against is not unlikley.

So, the place, the action, and the consequence are none very uhlikely, with the original assumption that this man with this philosophy and a following existed in the first place. And THAT assumption, given the times, is not unreasonable at all.

Note than NONE of the above require that Jesus KNEW that he would end up being crucified. That is the Christian belief, but it isn't a necessary condition for them to have happened.


I submit that the TIMING of the crucifixion during passover could have been THE biggest reason Christianity caught on because it made the IDEA that this godly man was the paschal lamb NOT SO HARD to be concieved and believed by some. Add to that the idea that he was risen, and you have the a major piece for the completion of the theology, since the sacrifice is for sins, which were believed to be the reason for death itself. NOTE too that the concept of Jesus as having risen also may have been conceived as a result of the timing of the crucifixion--the paschal lamb is MORE meaningful if he overcomes death.

IMO Paul mentions Jesus as being the paschal lamb NOT because he or someone else decided that it was a good idea derived from scriptures or Greek mythology and happened in some other world at some undefinable time and was just now being revealed to him and those before him, but because he knew that this man Jesus who had some followers was killed in such dramatic fashion during the Passover gathering in Jerusalem.

ted

Malachi151

I disagree Ted.

First of all, as Vork and myself and others have already discussed here several times, there is every reason to take the temple scene as a pure fiction, so let's not even go there.

Secondly, do you really think that the Jewish leaders would have been stupid enough to have someone crucified on Passover? Don't you think that they themselves would have understood the potential symbolism and problems with this? Who the hell is going to kill an itinerant preacher with a following during the festival of redemption?

Back to Paul.

Passover is only mentioned one time in the letters of Paul. The only other time it is mentioned is in Acts and the Gospels, and one time in Hebrews, but not in relation to his death.

In Hebrews Passover is mentioned in a passage talking about Moses.

Do you really think that the author of Hebrews, of all people, and out of such a work as Hebrews, would fail to mention that Jesus was crucified during Passover if he indeed existed as was crucified at such a time? Not likely at all.

Again, the reading of the passage by Paul is such that it doesn't even really seem that Paul is saying that Jesus was killed on Passover.

He is talking about Passover, and he says basically, "for us, Jesus serves the purpose of the Passover Lamb." Jesus has died to take away our sins, which is the purpose of the Passover Lamb, to take away sins, so Jesus is our Passover Lamb, not because he was killed on Passover, but because, in Paul's mind, he filled that role.

dongiovanni1976x

Roman prefects had two basic orders- keep the peace and collect the taxes. And more often than not those two went hand in hand.
If you have ever been to New Orleans for Mardi Gras you kind of get an idea of how volitile crowds can be and Passover was THE BIGGEST festival of the year in Jesus' time. Pilate actually made the jouney from Caesarea to Jerusalem just to be close to this volitile place when thousands of Diaspora Jews would journey in to make the necessary sacrifice. I don't think that it is hard to imagine that people were crucified during this festive time just as a reminder of who is in charge and that order WILL BE MAINTAINED.

Anyone causing a disturbance and getting the people all worked up over the coming judgement of the "temporal eartly powers" (i.e. Rome) who may or may not himself claimed to be an annointed king (messiah) (but many may have caused rumor of such) would be pressing his luck during this tense time.

TedM

You will agree though that the way the religious leaders handled money, and the focus on helping the poor, was a main point of focus in Jesus' alleged ministry as well as the early Christian movement, no?


I'm not as certain as you that they would have even CONSIDERED the idea that convicting and crucifying a man as a criminal was comparable to the paschal lamb sacrifice--especially if the lamb had already been sacrificed the day before.



That's a possible explanation, and the lack of clarification by Paul or the author of Hebrews may have been due to a lack of historical basis. However, if they were going to perceived Christ as having atoned for sin, WHEN else would they have conceived his crucifixion to have take place, if not during the Passover event in the 'other sphere'?

I was just providing a possible explanation for why the idea that Jesus was crucified during passover as a result of a disturbance is not at all unlikely, even if some myths formed over time about the specifics. I also was pointing out that the timing of the crucifixion during Passover of such a preacher could have provided significant support for the formation of the Christian religion.

ted

Clivedurdle

This lists 192 references to lamb in the Bible.

(Hebrews?)

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=lamb

Revelation is particularly interesting! Is the connection to Jesus a later addition?