spamandham

Isn't the concensus for this 3rd century?

Ben C Smith

Fair enough. I honestly do not know enough about dating this graffito to say otherwise. Several sources I consulted said late century I or early century II. Century III would certainly fit in with what Tertullian and Felix say about worshipping the head of an ass. I appreciate the correction, and I have adjusted my web page accordingly.

I leave the crucifixion-before-century-III argument to the literary evidence, then.

Ben.

schilling.klaus

The dating of the graffiti of Alexemenos is irrelevant, as it does not refer to the NT Jesus.

Klaus Schilling

Ben C Smith

Yes, it does.

However, I introduced it under the category of crucifixions in general, not under the category of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
The original Hebrew for 22:17 is Likely "like a lion" as demonstrated by:

Psalm 22:17, Hebrew Text, "Like A Lion". Determining Who's Original And Who's Lion?

Christian Greek translations generally refused to accept the Hebrew word here, presumably because they thought the sentence must have a verb, and assumed a Hebrew word with a close spelling that means "dig", primarily through the earth and with a connotation of creating something. The related Greek word has a more general meaning of "dig".

The related Latin word used to translate the Greek word here has an even broader meaning which includes "prick". We have our explanation here than as to the timing of the Christian Assertian that the supposed crucifixion was predicted by the supposed "piercing" of Psalm 22:17.

1) Pre-Christian = No evidence that anyone understood a "piercing" in 22:17 because the Hebrew was "like a lion".

2) Pre Christian-Latin = No evidence that anyone understood a "piercing" in 22:17 because the Greek word did not include that meaning.

3) Latin Christian = Christians claim a piercing in 22:17 because the Latin word is closer to that meaning ("prick").

The above is supported by the Development of Christian Assertian of the supposed crucifixion in:

The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original Second Century Gospel.

1) No early Greek Father refers to "piercing" in 22:17. Clement is one of the first to use the Jewish Bible to create a crucifixion narrative and even uses part of Psalm 22 but does not refer to a "piercing" there.

2) Barnabas likewise uses Psalm 22 but does not use "pierce", instead using "fastening with nails" from Psalm 119.

3) Justin is the first to refer to a "piercing" in 22:17 and Justin, in Rome, is fluent in Latin.

Most relevant for purposes of this Thread is the above helps demonstrate the following development of Christian Assertian of the supposed crucifixion:

1) No known Assertian by historical witness that Jesus was crucified.

2) Paul, not a historical witness, is the First to Assert that Jesus was crucified.

3) Paul Asserts that his Source in General and Specifically for knowledge of Jesus' crucifixion is Revelation.

4) Paul never Asserts that Historical witness claimed Jesus was crucified.

5) Subsequent Fathers take Paul's Basic crucifixion Assertion and start to add simple details such as Pilate.

6) Subsequent Fathers make belief in Jesus' crucifixion an Article of Faith.

7) Subsequent Fathers take Articles of Faith and use the Jewish Bible to create details of the crucifixion.

8) "Mark" creates the original crucifixion narrative based on 7).

9) Subsequent Christianity bases crucifixion narratives based on "Mark" because there is no other Source, such as history.

10) Subsequent Christianity creates Forged claims of Historical witness of the crucifixion because there are no authentic claims.



Joseph

REVELATION, n.
A famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing.

The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original Second Century Gospel.

spin

Can you demonstrate this claim of these translations being "incredibly untrustworthy" using sufficient examples?

How far can you tell? And through what means?

Why then does Vulgate translate stauros as crux and staurow as crucifigo?

Perhaps you should look at a few, such as BJ 3.215 or 5.451.

So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.

What evidence makes you think such a thing?

Does Josephus count?

Again, what evidence makes you think such a thing?

To answer my last question, nothing.

Yup.

"[J]ust"? It would be more complicated to append someone to a cross in order to stone or beat them. The thing about crucifixion is that it was simple. Stick them up there and just let them die from their own weight. No need for anything else.

What do you think Pompey did to the soldiers of Spartacus along the road from Capua to Rome? Did he waste time having the thousands beaten or ... umm, the Romans didn't stone people.


spin

spamandham

Joe, I tend to agree that the sequence you've outlined is a much simpler explanation of the evidence than the traditional HJ view, but I wonder if even this...

...was originally Paul's idea, or was it inserted later?

JoeWallack

JW:
Add to the above that Paul's presumably first Epistle, 1 Thessalonians, makes No reference to Crucifixion. This suggests that at the start of Paul's Ministry he was not Asserting crucifixion because he had never been told of it either through historical witness or supposed revelation.



Joseph

REVELATION, n.
A famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing.

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source

Amaleq13

Where do you think a reference to the specific means by which Jesus died would have been appropriate?

"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." (5:9-10)

Doesn't the phrase "who died for us" require or at least suggest some sort of sacrificial death?

patcleaver

No, Ben it may not refer to Christianity at all.

1) There are lots of references to the Jews worshiping a god with the head of an ass, and lots of Jews were crucified in 132 including Bar Kokhba who the Jewish priests had annointed as the messiah.

2) The cross on the graffiti could be a later addition to the graffiti. It is inconsistant that the cross is simply two lines, but the figure god is not a stick figure. Notice that the cross goes across the front of the god - not behind him.

3) the head looks more like a jackel than an ass and thus its more likely a depiction of the Egyptian god Anubis. We know that Anubis was a popular god in the third century, but no evedence that Jesus was a popular god in the third century.

This is not evidence Christians in the early 3rd century believed that Jesus was killed on a cross.