Steven Carr

'Crucified Messiah' is a theological term, like 'Archbishop' , 'original sin', 'inerrancy of scripture' and 'High Priest.'

Of course somebody invented a crucified Messiah, just like somebody invented the concept of 'Archbishop'.

sotto voce

The second term being invented because, so it was said, nobody would invent a crucified Messiah.

aa5874

John 15:13 KJVJohn 10:11 KJV The Crucified Jesus of gJohn was the GOOD Shepherd and the Greatest LOVER of Mankind.

The Crucified Messiah in gJohn may be the world's greatest INVENTION.

OLDMAN

Christians will tell you Jesus is not dead. The bible will tell you he is coming again. At what point does death (as something real) enter into the picture?

sotto voce

An invention, a heretical term, born of political oppression.

Another invention, a heretical term, of humanist origin.

This is tautology. Lore does not become 'scripture' unless it is inerrant.

This is a term that usually was applied to state functionaries on behalf of an emperor or monarch. It now no longer applies as appellation of a human being in any major organisation that bears official civil authority. It is in effect the title, as well as the imaginary role, of the head of the cult of the Vatican, and perhaps others.

In the biblical context, 'High Priest' had two orthodox meanings, and now has just one. The High Priest of Israel was not a political appointee, and was not legitimately used as a means of social control, as was the case in major empires of the period. Israel's High Priest offered sacrifices on behalf of himself and the people, to gain 'forgiveness' of their sins. But this state of acceptance was predicated on the future sacrifice of a real 'high priest', the aforementioned crucified messiah. It was a pre-figurement of that sacrifice, to assist in explaining it.

Sarpedon

I find it amazing that people would pretend that the concept of a crucified messiah couldn't possibly be invented in a region where certain religious concepts already exist:

Concepts like,
the Scapegoat,
Sacrificed God,
Unjustly persecuted prophets.

Diogenes the Cynic

Where did you get "sacrificed God" from (in any Jewish tradition) and what does that have to do with the Messiah?

The expected Jewish Messiah was a conqueror, not a redeemer of sins, not a scapegoat or a Paschal lamb, not a suffering servant, not a God and sure as hell not a crucified criminal (who would be "cursed" simply by virtue of being crucified whether he was guilty of any crime or not). The whole sine non qua of the Messiah was that he was first and foremost an ass kicker. He was Chuck Norris in sandals. The Jews weren't looking to the Davidic heir for forgiveness or spiritual salvation, but to kill the fucking Romans (and maybe take a few of those sell-out priests with them).

Suggesting that Palestinian Jews in the Roman period expected the Messiah to be an ineffectual, passive, crucified pansy is like saying that audiences would go to a Superman movie expecting Superman to be a quadriplegic, and not only that but a criminal.

The reimagining of the Messiah as a sacrificial figure rather than a literal (not spiritual or symbolic) conquering liberator looks for all the world like a post hoc explanation of a real event.

I find the notion that Palestinian Jews in the Roman period would have, for no discernible reason, suddenly decided that they didn't want the Messiah to liberate them, but to be sacrificed for their sins instead completely unbelievable, personally.

It's also completely unattested in any pre-Christian Jewish literature.

The crucifixion is a real, genuine, not contrived or specious example of dissimilarity with all previous Jewish expectation. It can't be waved away so easily as mythicists are wont to do it.

Bernard Muller

Yes, a sacrificed Messiah could have been invented (as the suffering servant of Isaiah, even if never said Messiah), but why crucified? That would imply the Romans did it as a punishment for rebel and criminal.
And if I devise a Messiah crucified, I would have him asking his disciples to nail him on a cross, in front of his followers. I would have him crucified by his own free will, not forced into it.
Instead, looking at gMark:
a) Jesus got a royal welcome from a group of Jews when approaching Jerusalem.
b) Next day, surrounded by a crowd, he acted as a trouble maker in the temple.
That would be enough in these days to have someone summarily crucified, more so if you are lower class and disposable.

sotto voce

Is that not circular? One has to demonstrate that Isaiah's servant was liable to be invented, which means finding a close conceptual parallel in lore other that that of Abraham. Which may be a tall order.

Sarpedon

I didn't say I got it from Jewish philosophy. Judaism wasn't the only religion in the Middle East. To claim that Christianity is solely based on Judaism is absurd. The Roman Empire was an enormous melting pot of religions.

The Adonis myth is the most commonly proposed origin. You could also see it in the Osiris myth.

And the difference between a Messiah, Mythical Hero, and God are trivial. In the realm of mythmaking, the terms are virtually interchageable, and attributes of one are frequently swapped onto others. The idea that Jesus could be a man to some, a hero or prophet to others, and a god to the rest is so commonplace in the realm of mythology as to be trivial and uninteresting.