Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 06-25-2010, 05:02 PM

I know this is probably not the place for this comment but I have been pouring over the Aramaic possibilities for the word 'to crucify' and I think I have come up with something significant. Hnq - ܚܢܩ is an umbrella term which means 'to choke, to strangle' but which includes crucifixion (for Jews crucifixion was taken as a form of strangulation). Yet I have been thinking about the SYMBOLIC or religious symbolism of crucifixion and how it ties with baptism. In Palestinian Aramaic you have evidence that it could mean 'choking off' or 'preventing' evil impulses so 'they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lust' fit into this discussion' suddenly make sense. But in Syriac there it can also mean 'to drown'

http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/word...rangelo+Edessa

I have always though that the 'baptism into death' imagery of the Apostolikon and Paul's interest in connecting baptism to the crossing of the sea don't make sense because the Israelites never touched the water.

However if Paul was advancing Philo's notion of the Egyptians drowning in the waters representing the death of 'passions' then it suddenly makes sense why 'crucifixion - viz. hnq - could be connected with the crossing of the sea and death and the 'choking of the passions.'

Maybe those who were crucified were understood to having their 'evils' or sins cleansed. I think Basilides says something like this from memory.

Anyway just trying to find blind spots in Samuelsson's claim that he researched all Greek and Aramaic words which can mean 'to crucify.' I don't think he considered hnq/snq.

gdeering · 06-25-2010, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars Man

I tend to think that it'd be better to use the English word impaled here.

I am not sure what you are getting at, what is your linguistic support for "impaled"?

Gregg

spin · 06-26-2010, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

AA

To be honest I think if we are going to probe into questions about the crucifixion the place to start is here:

ω ανοητοι γαλαται τις υμας εβασκανεν τη αληθεια μη πειθεσθαι οις κατ οφθαλμους ιησους χριστος προεγραφη εν υμιν εσταυρωμενος (Gal 3:1)

which is translated in a number of different ways:

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? (KJV)

Foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you not to obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth among you as crucified? (World English)

The part that has always puzzled me is the idea of being crucified 'among you' εν υμιν εσταυρωμενος. To me it sounds like an extension of the "From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus" (Gal 6:17) concept. In other words, I imagine that the Apostle was really arguing that the proof of the εσταυρωμενος is manifest his own person (i.e. that whatever σταυρός meant it was displayed in the person of the Apostle!)

In other words, the Apostle was walking around with signs on his body that there was a εσταυρωμενος.

I tend not to agree with this especially in regard to Gal 6:17 which more likely refers to marks probably alluded to in 2 Cor 11:23-5. The signs on Paul's body seem to be from the beatings and the stoning, incurred while doing god's work, the signs of his "martyring" in the Greek sense (μαρτυρεω), ie witnessing (with all its implications).

Gal 3:1 interestingly uses the verb προγραφω is an act of writing (see Rom 15:4), which makes sense if the foolish Galatians had together, ie "among you" (εν υμιν), read about the crucifixion of Jesus, as in a letter from Paul.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I know this sounds crazy but I have always thought that John 20:19 has a bizarre scenario where the disciples are hanging out with a guy that they don't know really is Jesus but this is confirmed when he "showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord."

I still don't know what σταυρός means but neither do any of the experts it seems. My guess is that the original sentence read:

ω ανοητοι γαλαται τις υμας εβασκανεν τη αληθεια μη πειθεσθαι οις κατ οφθαλμους χριστος προεγραφη εν υμιν εσταυρωμενος (Gal 3:1)

In other words, the Apostle was simply reminding his hearers that he was the Christ (implicit in his Marcionite title ho apostolos at least from a Samaritan perspective) and he was publicly displayed as εν υμιν εσταυρωμενος. What stands in the way of this of course is there are usually a great number of variant readings like this i.e. 'Christ' for 'Jesus' or 'Jesus Christ' in our received texts but not here to the best of my knowledge.

Also how does 'they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lust' fit into this discussion'? No clue.

Toto · 06-26-2010, 10:57 AM

Getting back to the OP, Vridar has linked to the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog on this issue, which provides a few more details.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abstract

... Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have afflicted nearly every wordbook and dictionary that deals with the terms related to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of what happened on Calvary. The immense knowledge of the punishment of crucifixion in general, and the execution of Jesus in particular, cannot be supported by the studied texts.

There are quotes there from chapter 7 of the thesis, including comments on Aramaic.

Toto · 06-26-2010, 11:05 AM

The digression over Jesus as fairy tale versus embellished history has been split off here to keep this thread focused on the specific issue of crucifixion.

aa5874 · 06-26-2010, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Getting back to the OP, Vridar has linked to the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog on this issue, which provides a few more details.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abstract

... Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have afflicted nearly every wordbook and dictionary that deals with the terms related to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of what happened on Calvary. The immense knowledge of the punishment of crucifixion in general, and the execution of Jesus in particular, cannot be supported by the studied texts.

There are quotes there from chapter 7 of the thesis, including comments on Aramaic.

But whether the Jesus story is fiction or not does not alter the fact that sources of antiquity did mention that Jewish people were crucified or NAILED to crosses.

"Life of Flavius Josephus" 75.

Quote:

And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance.
...

Tacitus "Annals 15"

Quote:

....Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired...

It is CLEAR that crucifixions where people were NAILED to crosses are supported by sources of antiquity.

Toto · 06-26-2010, 12:19 PM

aa - read the link. Samuelsson has taken these passages into account.

PhilosopherJay · 06-26-2010, 12:47 PM

Hi peterdi,

I have been staring at the Alexamenos graffiti for about a half hour.

I was trying to imagine what it would look like if I hadn't been told that it was a picture of a crucifixion.

My answer is that it looks like a man who sees the head of a horse/donkey leaning over a wall and does not realize that it has a man's body because the wall is obscuring his vision.

We, the viewers, see the body of the God behind the wall and his human body, but not the man. The man only sees the horse's head which he is looking directly at. The wall is symbolized by a single vertical line and a long horizontal line to indicate the top, a short horizontal line to indicate the middle and another line to indicate the ground where the horse/man is standing.

The point of the joke seems to be that Alexamenos loves horses/donkeys so much that he envisions his God as one, or they appear to him in that form.

People see lights and shadows on Mars and think they see a face. Here people see lines and think they see a crucifixion.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Does this tend to support Acharya S's identification of the "crucifixion" with other mythic examples of gods with outstretched arms?

I don't think so. Modern English readers tend to think of a "cross" as a particular shape, but the reason it means that shape is the result of Christian art depicting the cross as "cross shaped." I'm no expert, but I don't think that "Crux" in pre-christian Latin signified a particular shape.

It seems to me that a tradition of a T shaped cross was strong as early at the time of Tertullian and might possibly go back much further. But it doesn't seem that the shape of the cross is of any real importance to Christian theology.

The Alexamenos graffito appears to show the traditional type of cross, it isn't clear if the artist was aware of Christian depictions of the crucifixion or if he simly drew the type of cross most familiar to him.

Peter.

Toto · 06-26-2010, 12:57 PM

The Alexamenos graffiti looks to me more like a god mounted on a pole, similar to the pagan gods who were mounted on cruciform structures and paraded around a festivals (I don't have the time now to find the picture I have in mind.) The horse-god does not appear to be tortured or in pain.

If we didn't have Christianity in mind as a god-man on cross dying before being resurrected, I don't think that anyone would see that as a death through torture.

PhilosopherJay · 06-26-2010, 01:19 PM

Hi Toto,

Exactly.

Here's some modern graffiti where a line represents a wall:

Warmly,

Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Alexamenos graffiti looks to me more like a god mounted on a pole, similar to the pagan gods who were mounted on cruciform structures and paraded around a festivals (I don't have the time now to find the picture I have in mind.) The horse-god does not appear to be tortured or in pain.

If we didn't have Christianity in mind as a god-man on cross dying before being resurrected, I don't think that anyone would see that as a death through torture.

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

06-25-2010, 05:02 PM	#21
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I know this is probably not the place for this comment but I have been pouring over the Aramaic possibilities for the word 'to crucify' and I think I have come up with something significant. Hnq - ܚܢܩ is an umbrella term which means 'to choke, to strangle' but which includes crucifixion (for Jews crucifixion was taken as a form of strangulation). Yet I have been thinking about the SYMBOLIC or religious symbolism of crucifixion and how it ties with baptism. In Palestinian Aramaic you have evidence that it could mean 'choking off' or 'preventing' evil impulses so 'they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lust' fit into this discussion' suddenly make sense. But in Syriac there it can also mean 'to drown' http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/word...rangelo+Edessa I have always though that the 'baptism into death' imagery of the Apostolikon and Paul's interest in connecting baptism to the crossing of the sea don't make sense because the Israelites never touched the water. However if Paul was advancing Philo's notion of the Egyptians drowning in the waters representing the death of 'passions' then it suddenly makes sense why 'crucifixion - viz. hnq - could be connected with the crossing of the sea and death and the 'choking of the passions.' Maybe those who were crucified were understood to having their 'evils' or sins cleansed. I think Basilides says something like this from memory. Anyway just trying to find blind spots in Samuelsson's claim that he researched all Greek and Aramaic words which can mean 'to crucify.' I don't think he considered hnq/snq.

06-26-2010, 11:05 AM	#25
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The digression over Jesus as fairy tale versus embellished history has been split off here to keep this thread focused on the specific issue of crucifixion.

06-26-2010, 12:19 PM	#27
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	aa - read the link. Samuelsson has taken these passages into account.

06-26-2010, 12:57 PM	#29
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Alexamenos graffiti looks to me more like a god mounted on a pole, similar to the pagan gods who were mounted on cruciform structures and paraded around a festivals (I don't have the time now to find the picture I have in mind.) The horse-god does not appear to be tortured or in pain. If we didn't have Christianity in mind as a god-man on cross dying before being resurrected, I don't think that anyone would see that as a death through torture.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.