stephan huller

It's a basic question which I think never gets asked enough - was the Cross really meant to be a welcoming sight for Jews and Samaritans? If you're a modern Christian, Jew, Muslim or even an atheist the Cross is so prevalent in contemporary culture that it is difficult to imagine looking at it a new set of eyes.

Yet that's the problem.

Christians have been baptized into 'loving' the object that they can't see it for what it is - an instrument of torturous death. Jews have such an ingrained hatred of the Cross (I sometimes wonder if the characteristic trait of vampires was developed out of anti-Semitic traditions) that they can't even consider what it must have meant to their ancestors in the first century period.

But it is precisely these things which are essential for us to finally put the pieces together regarding Christian origins.

The central question is - when and why did the ancients start venerating the ancient equivalent of the electric chair? Yes of course the unthinking answer from believers is that 'Jesus appeared crucified' on one of these things or that Paul was the 'first theologian' of Christianity who 'invented' a religious doctrine of crucifixion.

On some level the answer people like this are giving you is that 'God' gave us the religion of the Cross.

To me this appeal to a bat kol always seems like a cop out. When you read Josephus's account of the Jewish War and its description of the manner in which crosses were used to terrify the rebellious Jews hiding behind the walls of Jerusalem one wonders whether God was fulfilling Daniel's prophesy by means of this 'abomination' or the κοσμοκράτωρ (cosmocrator) with some skillful help from a certain someone who knew "all customs and questions which are among the Jews." (Acts 26:3)

Was the Cross just a left over from the battlefield campaign of the Jewish War?

I will cite the most important hymn in the Samaritan liturgy (the first in their prayer books) written by a shadowy figure named Mark the son of Titus (Marqe ben Tute) from an indeterminable period (guesses range from the early second to fourth century) who happened to be the founder of the Samaritan tradition. This hymn was special. It was meant to be sung every time the Samaritans gather as a community (Sabbath, holidays etc) and is in effect a crucifixion hymn, to support this argument. For now it is just an open question ..

Toto

James Carroll (Constantine's Sword) thinks that the cross was not a Christian symbol until Constantine had his vision. There don't seem to be any early uses of the cross, as opposed to fish, anchors, etc.

What is the Samaritan crucifixion hymn?

stephan huller

I will introduce the First Hymn of Marqe with a personal story. I didn't find the hymn, the hymn found me or more precisely - my Samaritan friend told me about it after he learned about my Agrippa theory and my book " the Real Messiah (or via: amazon.co.uk)

It all began in a Denny's restaurant in Florida (I think it was in Melbourne but it must have 2005). I was with my Samaritan friend. He had just ordered grilled fish from the menu (for dietary reasons). After hearing my usual round of stupid questions he stopped me and said there was something I ought to know. It was this hymn. He recited it to me but his English was so bad I couldn't make out all the nuances. It wasn't until a few years later when I managed to get my friend Ruairidh Boid to figure out what the Samaritan was on about.

He actually took the time to translate all the important parts of the hymn. The comments that follow are his. I should say that Samuelsson's thesis about the inherent ambiguity with regards to old crucifixion references is applicable here. Both the Samaritan and the Samaritan expert take crucifixion to be the context of the hymn but the terminology reflects the ambiguity of the times.

The original comments comments from the translator Boid after my request:

(a) The only hymn of Marqe’s I could find that fits what you said is no. I. This is recited in part on every Sabbath and every Festival. Notice this. At some time it must have been laid down that it had to be recited constantly. It will take me some time to translate. It has 22 verses, each with seven lines. 22 x 7 = 154.

This hymn speaks of death and destruction in the present, wrought by estrangement from the will of God, and urges a reversal of behaviour. One verse could be taken as referring to executions, depending on how you understand one word. This is the fifth verse. Other verses might refer to this, but not directly.

“As a consequence of the sins we have committed, we are afflicted (or punished) with the TShNYQYH. [Look up the root ShNQ in Jastrow]. We can’t blame your goodness. All the blame is on us, since we ourselves have made ourselves perish. If someone goes and hits himself, who can rescue him?”.

Tashnîqayyå is the definite plural of T Sh N Y Q tashneq from the root Sh N Q. Ben-Hayyim is not at all convinced that it always means strangulation.

(b) The hymns translated by Kippenberg are from the collection called the Durran. They are very old. These are the hymns that talk about a very recent rejection of wrong religious practice or perhaps wrong doctrine.

(c) There is a lot of work to be done on the Samaritan liturgy. Life is too short.

Something different. The old Samaritan Hebrew to Aramaic dictionary of the Torah glosses Shilo as “the unsheather of the cross”. Any suggestions? Ben-Hayyim, followed as usual by Tal (who should have copied Ben-Hayyim’s thoroughness and rigour but didn’t) translates “the uprooter of the cross” saying (as a mere guess) that it refers to Muhammad. This makes no sense. How could the rise of Islam have been what took the sceptre away from Judah? The verb shin-lamed-pe usually means to unsheathe a sword, but can mean to take a shoe off or to pull something out of the ground. I think the plain meaning is that the reference is to whoever unsheathed the cross and used it like a sword to take power away from Judah or the Jews, but I can’t work out what exactly is meant.

I hope there a few people here at this site who are aware of the traditional implications of Shilo (not Brangelina baby). The name comes from the important reference in Genesis 49:10:

The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shilo comes and the obedience of the nations is his.

The name Shilo is a numerological equivalent of Moses (i.e. they add up to 345) and is usually understood by Jews and Samaritans that the messiah/the one to come will be 'like Moses.' The Samaritans themselves allude to the fact that Marqe ben Tute (Mark the son Titus) was this figure (Mark = MRQH = 345 = Moses). The obvious question that Boid and I have is whether Mark is being cryptically referenced as 'the unsheather of the cross.' I just showed in another thread that Origen drawing from a first or second century Jewish history identifies Agrippa with the both Shilo and the messiah of Daniel 9:26. Rabbinic tradition echoes Origen's interpretation (the Samaritans didn't recognize Daniel).

In any event without further ado here is Boid's translation of the Samaritan material. If anyone needs clarification about who the scholars Boid is referencing (Kippenberg, Ben Hayyim, Tal) just let me know.

The verses run from the first letter to the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet (i.e. alef to tav). The translated section begins at lamed (l):

ADDITION: There are some more lines on the same theme in Verse Kaf and Verse Tsade, but they don’t add anything new.

[1] The word from the root tsade-lamed-bet in Verse Lamed is מצטלבה miṣṭållēbå. It is a perfectly normal ethpa’al participle (to use Syriac terminology) equivalent to the Hebrew hitpa’el. The t.et is an infix. It is the tav of the hitpa’el or ethpa’al which moves to AFTER a sibilant and changes its form to match the sibilant. Here it changes from tav to tsade. Next to zayin it will change to dalet. The only difficulty is the suffix, which in form is either feminine indefinite or masculine definite. The second grammatical interpretation of the suffix gives “The rebel sees himself vulnerable to punishments, and knows that he himself is the one crucified”. The first interpretation gives the meaning, “and knows that his identity is crucified”. The word translated “he himself” or “his identity” can only be interpreted from the context and a grammatical analysis of the components of the word, since the usage here is not attested elsewhere.
[2] I have translated according to the traditional Samaritan etymology and understanding, which is not far from the traditional Jewish understanding. Disregard the mangling by most modern translations. This is water that is drunk to establish innocence. It has a tiny little bit of the dirt of the ground round the Sanctuary in it, as well as something to make it bitter, from memory I think wormwood. A guilty person is afflicted by it. (It was a wonderful device for clearing people of slander). The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. (This is one of the hints of resurrection in the Torah, and Marqe seems to have it in mind along with the other meanings). The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. The passage in the Torah is in Numbers. I will look up the reference later. There is a lot of traditional theory not stated in the words of the Torah but agreed on by Samaritans and Jews
[3] tashnîqayya. This is the traditional Samaritan understanding here, but Ben-Hayyim argues for the meaning “burnt up”. The Aramaic verb is apparently from the root tsade-lamed-bet, and this is how the Samaritans understand it. Ben-Hayyim thinks this to be a phonetic variant of tsade-lamed-he-bet in this place, but it seems to me that he is scratching round for alternatives to the traditional understanding because he can’t see the relevance of it
[4] maradu
[5] or 'suffer'
[6] Fanuta a core Samaritan theological concept history being divided into periods of favor and disfavor.
[7] verb is shin-nun-qof
[8] The verb shin-vav-bet is Hebrew. The Aramaic equivalent is tav-vav-bet. The participle of the Aramaic verb is Ta’eb. I think your question is whether the Aramaic tav-vav-bet occurs. No. In Verse Yod the verb h.et-zayin-resh is used to mean returning to God or repenting. This is the usual Samaritan theological equivalent of the Hebrew shin-vav-bet when writing in Aramaic. The word Ta’eb does not mean someone that repents. It means someone that comes back again. It is used in the the extant texts in the sense of someone that makes something come back again, the Tabernacle or the Ruuta. That is grammatically impossible. In that meaning the af‘al participle would be needed (=Hebrew hif‘il), i.e. metib. This means the original meaning of the return of Moses has been deliberately obscured.

Discussion to follow ...

Steve Weiss

You assume that the mythical Jesus was hung on a cross. See Acts and Peter for references to a tree not a cross. The idea of a cross is a typical example of historical revisionism and propaganda.

stephan huller

Thanks. I spent three hours typesetting one of the most important texts in the Samaritan religion, one which has never before been translated into English and I get this. Did you read the title of the thread? The 'mythical Jesus' as you call him is entirely peripheral to this discussion. The question is the APPLICATION of crucifixion in ancient Palestine. No one knows how old this hymn is. I have my own crazy ideas but can I be afforded like three minutes of everyone's mental space before they go back on to autopilot.

My point is that I don't see how the Cross could have been welcoming to Jews and Samaritans. It was a symbol of the Roman oppression that had control of their lives for about a century BEFORE Jesus. I don't care whether you think that Jesus was a myth or that he was nailed to a pizza. I want to have a discussion where people THINK about inherited concepts IN THEIR ORIGINAL HISTORICAL CONTEXT.

Sorry if I was asking too much ...

aa5874

You use Acts and Peter as historical sources?

This is found in Wars of the Jews 1 Wars of the Jews 2.14.9 People of antiquity were NAILED to CROSSES.

Toto

It doesn't matter if it was a Latin style cross or a stake or a tau-shaped cross. It does represent a form of torture or punishment for both Christians and Jews.

I think that the Christian line is that Jesus triumphed over the punishment of the cross, therefore transfiguring it. But, as I noted before, the cross as a symbol for Christianity is post-Constantine.

In contrast, the astrotheological take is that the "cross" represents the "cross of the zodiac." But I will let someone else try to argue for that.

stephan huller

Wow AA to my rescue! Thanks man.

This is the exact quote I was looking for before I was called away from my computer.

The cities of ancient Judea weren't like Seattle! You aren't going to find eight hundred trees to hang people from.

My point - the point of this post - is that I think that there is an artificiality to Josephus's narrative. I keep mentioning it in various threads but let's repeat:

My point is that if you read Clement or Origen or Rashi, Nachmanides or Abarbanel you get the EXACT same core interpretation. The differences can be accounted as a corruption over time and the stratifying of 'Jewish' and 'Christian' identities over time. But they are too similar to be attributed to just chance.

Titus is the prince (Dan 9:25) Agrippa is the messiah who gets cut off (Dan 9:26). The sacrifices stop and the abomination of desolation is revealed which is a prelude to the final destruction of the temple which comes about through the prince (the messiah, the one who could have saved the Jews has been rejected and cut off).

Now I have to stress none of the sources reference ALL of the points. But because each individual is part of a tradition we can assume some degree of continuity even when there are minor differences otherwise.

My question in this post is whether the Cross was originally conceived as the abomination of desolation by BOTH Jews and Christians. For Jews it was an abomination because it threatened them with death. For the Gentiles who converted to Christianity in the first and second centuries it was the instrument of revenge on the Jews who punished Jesus this way (what moderns would call 'karma').

On a deeper level I wonder whether at some of the basic ideas of texts like the Vengeance of the Savior and the Gospel of Nicodemus were 'true' - in other words, that the gospel was written as a kind of 'instruction' to explain why the Jewish rebels had to be crucified why they deserved death. After all the original text was written by a guy named Mark who introduces Jesus referencing Daniel 9:24 - 27 just before his crucifixion.

In a sense then he is telling Jews 'forty two years' (cf Clement and Origen) before the destruction that:

When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains

There are a number of sources which develop the theme of 'the Cross conquering the temple.' I have mentioned the passage from the Slavonic Josephus in another post but there are others.

The Vengeance of the Savior frames the 'vengeance' in terms of the aforementioned 'karma.' While Agrippa is noticeably absent from the narrative again ('cut off' in the very beginning) Titus befriends his sister Berenice and decides to avenge the mistreatment of Jesus by surrounding Jerusalem and killing all its inhabitants and punish them in the manner Jesus was punished:

As stupid as these stories seem - is there a grain of truth? Was Mark's original gospel a reflection of some 'decision' to threaten Jews and Samaritans with crucifixion if they ever stepped out of line again.

It is hard to get a hold of all the sources but I have taken an extensive look at all the differences between the Yosippon and our familiar texts of Josephus.

It’s hard to tell from the wording in the Yosippon whether the Abomination of Desolation is to be dated to the death of Agrippa or to just before the destruction of the Temple. The only grounds for my choice of the second possibility as more probable is that the reference in the “Little Apocalypse” in Mark and Matthew is to some object set up in the sanctuary. I will sort this out later.

Whichever reading is right, the Yosippon is emphatic that the erection or appearance of the Abomination is the direct consequence of the execution of Agrippa on false evidence. The Abomination and Agrippa are inseparable, according to this text.

I’m trying to work out precisely which offering the Yosippon refers to as having ended a week exactly after the judicial murder of Agrippa. The Rabbinic texts always say it was the Tamid, the daily offering, but the word in the Yosippon is more specific, “Minh.a” מנחה, which is an offering of flour with olive oil kneaded through it. Either way, if the precise form was the Sabbath offering, which was slightly more elaborate, and Agrippa was executed on a Sabbath, then the nefarious consequences would have come about immediately, but again would only have been evident a week later, on the next Sabbath.

Toto

The Vengeance of the Savior "This version of the legend of Veronica is written in very barbarous Latin, probably of the seventh or eighth century."

I don't see this level of anti-Semitism as typical of early Christianity.

stephan huller

But that's what Catholics think because it sounds so strange (the New Advent Encyclopedia is old, old, old). There are a lot of parallels with the rabbinic literature here and so Israel Jacob Yuval (Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Antiquity 2008) writes:

I think this tradition, the Gospel of Nicodemus, and all the crazy Latin texts with Pilate and Berenice actually date to an even earlier period. Look at how the Vindicta is really a haphazard fusion of two separate traditions. The reason the Latin is so bad is because the material undoubtedly goes back to a heretical source which goes back to a very early period. Look at the Latin Mass and its preservation of place for Veronica in the Stations of the Cross. Veronica was remembered at the 6th Station: she wipes the face of Jesus on his way to Calvary but this is no longer in the gospel.

I remember reading some French philosopher say once that this proved that Veronica was edited out of the gospel narrative. He might be right ...