Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by neilgodfrey »

MrMacSon wrote: I'd say most scholars would, foremost, hold that the Gospels are historical documents.
Perhaps some confusion here. All ancient artefacts and copies of ancient manuscripts are potentially "historical documents" for historians. Do you mean that the gospels are considered to be ancient biographies or ancient narratives attempting to document historical events?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by neilgodfrey »

ficino wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote: On the other hand, we do have indications that there were strands of Second Temple Judaism that did believe in a future messiah (not necessarily a sole messiah) to die, probably by means of piercing somehow. If so, then we probably have to think of Paul being influenced by such beliefs.
I remember not long ago there was a lot of controversy about the Vision of Gabriel inscription. I think some said that the guy who publicized it had misread some of the letters; others said the evidence for a suffering Messiah in literary Jewish sources was later and had been infected by Christianity (as in this blog:

http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com/2008 ... ssiah.html )

Neil, do you know how things have played out about the inscription, and do you have other "indications" in mind when you mention them in the sentences quoted above?
SInce there has been so much controversy and outright criticism over Knohl's publications I have avoided any reference to his claims. They are too much in doubt to be part of any substantial case.

There is considerable evidence that there were Jews of the Second Temple era who interpreted the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah messianically and that a messiah was predicted to die, being pierced through, and raised again.

Daniel writes of a messiah who is killed and he draws upon passages from Isaiah in the process; Zechariah appears to be drawing upon Daniel and Isaiah to create his passages about the shepherd God strikes down. The blood of such a figure had the power to atone for the sins of Israel according to Second Temple literature. I am preparing to do posts on these themes.

I know April DeConick and others argue that Paul's claim that Jews were offended by the idea of a crucified Christ speaks against any such ideas predating Christianity but as I've posted here and elsewhere before, Morton Smith shows that the offence was in Paul's view of the implications this death had for the law; Matthew Novenson cites N.T. Wright, Paula Fredriksen and Alan Segal in support of the view that this passage does not testify to Jews being offended at the idea of a dying messiah: http://vridar.org/2012/07/29/christ-amo ... hs-part-7/. Daniel Boyarin, Martin Hengel and others also discuss in depth the range of evidence for Second Temple Jews (some of them) embracing the idea of a slain messiah.

Later evidence in the Talmud likewise speaks of a slain messiah, and one who is to be a son of Joseph. As Carrier points out, it is very difficult to imagine Jews allowing themselves to be influenced by Christians to adopt this interpretation of their scriptures. It is more credible to think that these Jews inherited this interpretation from pre-Christian traditions.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Keeping this party going, most people, including Skeptics, don't realize that we have no record of anyone being crucified in Israel in the first half of the first century outside of the Gospel account. Brown confesses this in his classic The Death of the Messiah. The setting supports this as Rome was large and in charge of Israel at this time and Israel was relatively peaceful. The Roman crucifixions in the second half of the century are one of the most memorable occurrences. Thus Paul/Fake Paul, writing at a time when crucifixion was all the rage in Israel, smells anachronistic. This paragraph is reason all by itself to at least doubt that Jesus was crucified.

Additionally, Paul provides little detail regarding his Jesus' supposed crucifixion. The most/only detail Paul seems to give about Jesus' supposed crucifixion is Galatians 3
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
No mention of "crucifixion" but rather hung from a tree. Hanging seems to me to be a more plausible form of death. If Jesus created a disturbance in the Temple during Passover he probably would have been summarily executed by the Temple guard, under Jewish control, and hung (at least at some point during the execution). The problems I have with crucifixion is that all Christian testimony indicates Roman authority would not have considered Jesus a serious political threat, GMark's original crucifixion story is completely unbelievable and it doesn't make sense that if the leader of a movement was crucified in Jerusalem his movement would be free to continue promoting him in Jerusalem. There also appears to be no quality evidence that anyone who knew Jesus claimed he was crucified.

It's possible than that Paul was the first to assert that Jesus was "crucified", that Paul meant it figuratively and that the reason we do not have anything written by anyone who knew Jesus claiming that Jesus was crucified, is because Jesus was not crucified.

Summary of reasons so far to doubt that Jesus was crucified:
  • 1) No record of anyone being crucified in Israel in the first half of the first century outside of the Gospel account.

    2) Paul/Fake Paul, writing at a time when crucifixion was all the rage in Israel, smells anachronistic.

    3) Paul provides little detail regarding his Jesus' supposed crucifixion.

    4) Paul's related proof-text from The Jewish Bible refers to being hung from a tree.

    5) Based on Jesus' described offense in the Gospels, he would not have been crucified.

    6) GMark's original crucifixion story consists mainly of the impossible and improbable.

    7) It doesn't make sense that if the leader of a movement was crucified in Jerusalem his movement would be free to continue promoting him in Jerusalem.

    8) There appears to be no quality evidence that anyone who knew Jesus claimed he was crucified.

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.

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by maryhelena »

Not forgetting Lena Einhorn and her time-shift theory in "JESUS AND THE “EGYPTIAN PROPHET”

CRUCIFIXIONS

In addition to this, Josephus makes no note of crucifixions of Jews betwen 4 B.C.E. and 46
C.E., except in Testimonium Flavianum. He mentions them, however, under Varus (4 B.C.E.),
Tiberius Alexander (46 to 48 C.E.), Cumanus (48 to 52 C.E.), Felix (52 to ca. 59 C.E.), and
Florus (64 to 6 C.E.), as well as during the Jewish War (66 to 73 C.E.)


http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote:
MrMacSon wrote: I'd say most scholars would, foremost, hold that the Gospels are historical documents.
Perhaps some confusion here. All ancient artifacts and copies of ancient manuscripts are potentially "historical documents" for historians. Do you mean that the gospels are considered to be ancient biographies or ancient narratives attempting to document historical events?
Yes; I mean where the gospel narratives are considered to be reliable records of real events involving specific people (Jesus's genealogy is one example).

(another issue is the apologists' view many NT people and events occurred b/c they had been prophecied, without acknowledging the NT could have been written to retrospectively fulfill OT prophecy).
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by perseusomega9 »

:D Any relationship to the rarity of the cross in early christian art, yet its ubiquitous in the chi-rho and tau-rho in early texts per Hurtado? Does this point to the crucifixion being a mystery? Did the other xtians oppose him because he preached it openly?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by MrMacSon »

perseusomega9 wrote::D Any relationship to the rarity of the cross in early christian art, yet its ubiquitous in the chi-rho and tau-rho in early texts per Hurtado? Does this point to the crucifixion being a mystery? Did the other xtians oppose him because he preached it openly?
See this thread - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... staurogram
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by perseusomega9 »

Thanks for linking that, it fell off my radar, will reread
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Sheshbazzar
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:21 am

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by Sheshbazzar »

Summary of reasons so far to doubt that Jesus was crucified:

1) No record of anyone being crucified in Israel in the first half of the first century outside of the Gospel account.

2) Paul/Fake Paul, writing at a time when crucifixion was all the rage in Israel, smells anachronistic.

3) Paul provides little detail regarding his Jesus' supposed crucifixion.

4) Paul's related proof-text from The Jewish Bible refers to being hung from a tree.

5) Based on Jesus' described offense in the Gospels, he would not have been crucified.

6) GMark's original crucifixion story consists mainly of the impossible and improbable.

7) It doesn't make sense that if the leader of a movement was crucified in Jerusalem his movement would be free to continue promoting him in Jerusalem.

8) There appears to be no quality evidence that anyone who knew Jesus claimed he was crucified.
9) Paul never used the word 'crucified', that via way of latter Latin translations, now appears in our translations.
The Greek that Paul employed in no way suggests nor implies dying on a 'cross' of any form.
Late Roman Catholic iconic diddling notwithstanding.

Roman LATIN linguistic religious rigmarole is being foisted off on us all.
I for one, am sick of and fed up with having the Christians false and fabricated 'cross' and 'crucifix' LATIN lingo stuffed down my throat.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by outhouse »

MrMacSon wrote: Yes; I mean where the gospel narratives are considered to be reliable records of real events involving specific people (Jesus's genealogy is one example).
.

Only by the uneducated. It makes you look very dishonest and biased.

Show us one credible source that believes Jesus's genealogy is an accurate portrayal.


Even the encyclopedia gives a more credible honest answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

The author may have been influenced by Greco-Roman biographies and rhetorical forms, popular novels and romances, and the Homeric epics; nevertheless, he mentions almost no public figures, makes no allusions to Greek or Roman literature, and takes all his references from the Jewish scriptures, mostly in their Greek versions.[10] His book is not history in the modern sense, or even in the sense of classical Greek and Roman historians, but "history in an eschatological or apocalyptic sense," depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time.[11]
Post Reply