Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 01-01-2006, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The bigger deal is the issue of the cross, because it is a fundmaental aspect of Christain belief.

The fact is that the idea of Jesus being crucified on a cross comes in aroud the 6th or 7th century. The worship of the cross far predates the idea that Jesus died on one.

Paul, in Gal 3:1:

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Where "crucified" is:
1) to stake, drive down stakes
2) to fortify with driven stakes, to palisade
3) to crucify

Asha'man · 01-01-2006, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Furthermore, the earliest Greek texts that describe the killing of Jesus don't mention a cross, they say that he was strung up on a pole. There is actually an account in the Bible that says he was killed on a tree. In addition to this, death by being strung up on a pole is a uniquely Greek form of killing, lending support to the idea that this was a mytholgy that developed as the Christian religion developed in Greece.

I should point out that the traditional Jewish form of capital punishment was stoning, followed by hanging the corpse from a tree. The body had to be removed by nightfall or it would become a curse upon the land, but it was displayed for a day as a warning to others. (Deu 21:22-23)

It's been claimed that hanging on a tree is a euphamism for crucifixion, but it seems far more likely it's a literal reference to the followup after death by stoning.

Asha'man · 01-01-2006, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The fact is that the idea of Jesus being crucified on a cross comes in aroud the 6th or 7th century. The worship of the cross far predates the idea that Jesus died on one.

You should also do some research into some Jewish writings, like the Talmud and Toldoth Yeshu.

The Talmuds were written down around the 5th century, and they have no mention of a Jesus being crucified. There are a couple mentions to one or more Jesus' who were stoned and hanged, but these may or may not have been about Jesus of Nazareth. At the very least, it was assumed by later writers that these were disguised references to Jesus of Nazareth, despite the death by stoning.

When the Toldoth Yeshu was later written, it is very clear in stating that Jesus of Nazareth was stoned and hanged under Jewish law. (Pilate and the Romans aren't even part of the story.) It's not clear when it was written, the earliest manuscripts we have are middle ages, but they seem to reflect a Jewish tradition that is possibly as old as the Talmuds.

Malachi151 · 01-01-2006, 06:26 AM

Yes, again, this sounds to me like the "killing of Jesus" was a pervasive part of the myth, but the form of his death was told in ways peculiar to the culture that the myth was being told in.

The Jews said he was stoned and hung, the Greeks said he was hung on a pole, and the Romans said he was crucified on a cross, each using the means of death that was commonly employed by their cultures to tell the story.

Interesting.

Notsri · 01-01-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asha'man

You should also do some research into some Jewish writings, like the Talmud and Toldoth Yeshu.

The Talmuds were written down around the 5th century, and they have no mention of a Jesus being crucified. There are a couple mentions to one or more Jesus' who were stoned and hanged, but these may or may not have been about Jesus of Nazareth. At the very least, it was assumed by later writers that these were disguised references to Jesus of Nazareth, despite the death by stoning.

When the Toldoth Yeshu was later written, it is very clear in stating that Jesus of Nazareth was stoned and hanged under Jewish law. (Pilate and the Romans aren't even part of the story.) It's not clear when it was written, the earliest manuscripts we have are middle ages, but they seem to reflect a Jewish tradition that is possibly as old as the Talmuds.

Yes, again, this sounds to me like the "killing of Jesus" was a pervasive part of the myth, but the form of his death was told in ways peculiar to the culture that the myth was being told in.

The Jews said he was stoned and hung, the Greeks said he was hung on a pole, and the Romans said he was crucified on a cross, each using the means of death that was commonly employed by their cultures to tell the story.

Interesting.

There is no early Jewish text that states unequivocally that Jesus was stoned. A baraita from Bavli Sanhedrin 43a does raise that possibility, but in point of fact says only that he was "hanged on the eve of the Sabbath." The suggestion that he was first stoned and then hanged I would presume is meant to harmonize the baraita with mishnaic legislation. The Toledot Yeshu (also) ignores the Mishnah, having Jesus only hanged. In any event, neither the Talmud nor the Toledot Yeshu offer evidence of much historical value in this case, since both post-date the 1st c. and NT literature by centuries.

I would assume your reference, Malachi151, to the "Greeks" and Jesus' death on a "pole" depends on the NT's use of the word stauros, which can mean "pole" or "stake." (The Jehovah's Witnesses make much of that point.) Even so, stauros can just as well refer to a cross. If I were at home and had access to my books, I'd post a few relevant excerpts to illustrate the point. If by chance, though, you have access to, say, Lucian of Samosata's parody Trial in the Court of Vowels (maybe it's accessible online?), I'll direct you to section 12 there, where the stauros is said to have given its shape to, and derived its name from the (cruciform) Greek letter Tau (T).

GakuseiDon was correct when he suggested "tree" was used synonymously in the NT with stauros/cross. The same figure is used by extrabiblical authors as well, Philo and Seneca being two that immediately come to mind. (The fact that a single NT author will use both "tree" and "cross" in connection with Jesus' crucifixion should IMO make the synonymy self-evident.)

Regards,
Notsri

Malachi151 · 01-01-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri

There is no early Jewish text that states unequivocally that Jesus was stoned. A baraita from Bavli Sanhedrin 43a does raise that possibility, but in point of fact says only that he was "hanged on the eve of the Sabbath." The suggestion that he was first stoned and then hanged I would presume is meant to harmonize the baraita with mishnaic legislation. The Toledot Yeshu (also) ignores the Mishnah, having Jesus only hanged. In any event, neither the Talmud nor the Toledot Yeshu offer evidence of much historical value in this case, since both post-date the 1st c. and NT literature by centuries.

I would assume your reference, Malachi151, to the "Greeks" and Jesus' death on a "pole" depends on the NT's use of the word stauros, which can mean "pole" or "stake." (The Jehovah's Witnesses make much of that point.) Even so, stauros can just as well refer to a cross. If I were at home and had access to my books, I'd post a few relevant excerpts to illustrate the point. If by chance, though, you have access to, say, Lucian of Samosata's parody Trial in the Court of Vowels (maybe it's accessible online?), I'll direct you to section 12 there, where the stauros is said to have given its shape to, and derived its name from the (cruciform) Greek letter Tau (T).

GakuseiDon was correct when he suggested "tree" was used synonymously in the NT with stauros/cross. The same figure is used by extrabiblical authors as well, Philo and Seneca being two that immediately come to mind. (The fact that a single NT author will use both "tree" and "cross" in connection with Jesus' crucifixion should IMO make the synonymy self-evident.)

Regards,
Notsri

That's all well and good, and I'm not going to take the time to confirm or deny any of it, because none of it changes the other facts stated.

The central facts are these:

1) The worship of crosses among Hellenistic people's existed prior to the origin of Christianity or the supposed time of Jesus's crucifixion.

2) Tertullian has provided an explanation for why Christians worship the cross in 197 CE that is completely devoid of any mention of Christ or crucifixion.

3) Images of the crucifixion of Christ do not appear until the 6th or 7th century.

Assumption:

If Jesus was killed on a cross, and his death and resurection were central to early Christian belief, then surely this would be a major point to all early Christians, so all early Christians would say that the reason they worshiped the cross was because it symbolzed the killing of Jesus in some fashion.

What I believe in relation to these facts:

The story that Jesus was killed by crucifixion on a cross developed after the advent of the Christian religion.

My hypothisis:

It is possible to find other early Christian writings or writings about Christians showing that early Christians worshiped the cross for reasons having nothing to do with the killing of Jesus and that the killing of Jesus was in no way linked to the image of the cross among early Christians.

What I would conclude from this:

If I can find other sources that corroborate the view that early Christians didn't associate the worship of the cross with the death of Jesus, that would strengthen my conclusion that the crucifixion of Jesus is a myth.

GakuseiDon · 01-01-2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

If I can find other sources that corroborate the view that early Christians didn't associate the worship of the cross with the death of Jesus, that would strengthen my conclusion that the crucifixion of Jesus is a myth.

Malachi, have you seen Acharya S's website? She goes into similar topics. I'm sure you will find her convincing. :angel:

Asha'man · 01-02-2006, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri

There is no early Jewish text that states unequivocally that Jesus was stoned. A baraita from Bavli Sanhedrin 43a does raise that possibility, but in point of fact says only that he was "hanged on the eve of the Sabbath."

Hi Nostri,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanhedrin 43a

On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf."

Clearly, the talmud uses both stoned and hanged. The way I read it, saying he "was hanged" is a terse way of indicating that the stoning was complete, given that the one followed the other by law. It's true that it does not literally say that he was stoned first, but it does appear to be a reasonable reading.

ISVfan · 01-02-2006, 04:44 PM

Kosh is right in a way. Even though he was sarcastic. Remeber there wasn't just one Church during this time frame so to try and pin this on all Christians wouldn't do. You would have to prove Christian did this in Gaul, Armenia, Alexandria and all the other places which Christianity had spread.

Notsri · 01-02-2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asha'man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri

There is no early Jewish text that states unequivocally that Jesus was stoned. A baraita from Bavli Sanhedrin 43a does raise that possibility, but in point of fact says only that he was "hanged on the eve of the Sabbath."

Hi Nostri,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanhedrin 43a

On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf."

Clearly, the talmud uses both stoned and hanged. The way I read it, saying he "was hanged" is a terse way of indicating that the stoning was complete, given that the one followed the other by law. It's true that it does not literally say that he was stoned first, but it does appear to be a reasonable reading.

Hey, Asha'man.

I suppose I won't argue. Perhaps in my reading I'm being too literalistic. Not to mention, as I sit writing this, I'm reminded that the Talmud expatiates quite a bit on the mishnaic stipulation that a particular culprit must be first stoned, then hanged. If memory serves, the 43a baraita occurs within the course of that discussion, probably serving to illustrate the point. So I concede, yours "does appear to be a reasonable reading."

Regards,
Notsri

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

01-01-2006, 06:26 AM	#34
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Yes, again, this sounds to me like the "killing of Jesus" was a pervasive part of the myth, but the form of his death was told in ways peculiar to the culture that the myth was being told in. The Jews said he was stoned and hung, the Greeks said he was hung on a pole, and the Romans said he was crucified on a cross, each using the means of death that was commonly employed by their cultures to tell the story. Interesting.

01-02-2006, 04:44 PM	#39
ISVfan Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Somers, MT Posts: 78	Kosh is right in a way. Even though he was sarcastic. Remeber there wasn't just one Church during this time frame so to try and pin this on all Christians wouldn't do. You would have to prove Christian did this in Gaul, Armenia, Alexandria and all the other places which Christianity had spread.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.