Ἰησοῦν ἐσταυρωμένον - What is the Evidence?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Ἰησοῦν ἐσταυρωμένον - What is the Evidence?

Post by Secret Alias »

As many of us know, the idea that 'Jesus' and 'Christ' were two different entities, two different 'persons' is quite old - as old if not older than our oldest explicit identification of them as properly referencing the same person. So I asked myself after I looked at 1 Corinthians - what's the oldest evidence for a specific historical statement that Jesus RATHER THAN CHRIST was actually crucified? 1 Corinthians starts with the formula that 'Christ' was crucified (1 Cor 1:23) and then in our edition of the text 'Jesus Christ' follows (1 Cor 2:2). But how certain can we be that the man on the cross was Jesus?

There is some instability in the citations in Patristic literature. Clement's MS (undoubtedly corrected by a later hand) has 'Jesus Christ' at 1 Cor 1:23. Tertullian writing against the Marcionites says:
Falsely did Paul determine to know nothing amongst us but Jesus and Him crucified; falsely has he impressed upon us that He was buried; falsely inculcated that He rose again. False, therefore, is our faith also. And all that we hope for from Christ will be a phantom.
But what are we to make of this? Is Tertullian emphasizing a point the Marcionites would deny (i.e. that Jesus specifically was crucified) or that they would accept (i.e. that the Marcionite text specifically had 'Jesus' rather than 'Christ' in 1 Cor 1:23)?

Given the emphasis that those who argue that the crucifixion is a historical certainty it is worth identifying what is the earliest evidence that a man named Jesus specifically was crucified under Pilate or crucified at at?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ἰησοῦν ἐσταυρωμένον - What is the Evidence?

Post by Secret Alias »

Epiphanius on the Ebionites:

Ἰησοῦν, τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου ἡγεμόνος
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ἰησοῦν ἐσταυρωμένον - What is the Evidence?

Post by Secret Alias »

John's rewrite of Matthew:

"Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier (b) a part: and also his coat. Now the coat was without seam woven from the top throughout. 24. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots whose it shall be; that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith: They parted my garments among them, and for my vesture did they cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did."

And Matthew witnesses to what was done as follows:

"And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. And sitting down they watched him."

Cited in Origen Against Celsus book 4 τεσσαράκοντα γὰρ ἔτη καὶ δύο οἶμαι ἀφ' οὗ ἐσταύρωσαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν γεγονέναι ἐπὶ τὴν Ἱεροσολύμων καθαίρεσιν.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Ἰησοῦν ἐσταυρωμένον - What is the Evidence?

Post by davidbrainerd »

Secret Alias wrote:As many of us know, the idea that 'Jesus' and 'Christ' were two different entities, two different 'persons' is quite old - as old if not older than our oldest explicit identification of them as properly referencing the same person. So I asked myself after I looked at 1 Corinthians - what's the oldest evidence for a specific historical statement that Jesus RATHER THAN CHRIST was actually crucified? 1 Corinthians starts with the formula that 'Christ' was crucified (1 Cor 1:23) and then in our edition of the text 'Jesus Christ' follows (1 Cor 2:2). But how certain can we be that the man on the cross was Jesus?
Wrong. Because you're twisting the evidence as usual. Yes, "the idea that 'Jesus' and 'Christ' were two different entities, two different 'persons' is quite old", BUT two different entities here always means Jesus is the human being and Christ is a divine spirit residing in him and NOT what you are peddling here (that Christ is a second human being). So in the Jesus and Christ as two entities theologies, NO, its not possible that Christ was crucified in place of Jesus. Either Jesus was crucified with Christ still inside him or Jesus was crucified without Christ still inside him. But Christ cannot be crucified by himself because he's a spirit. And, of course, Since in Orthodoxy, Jesus and Christ are NOT distinct entities, of course the final Catholic version of Paul can have "Christ crucified" because Christ and Jesus are NOW interchangeable.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ἰησοῦν ἐσταυρωμένον - What is the Evidence?

Post by Secret Alias »

We know the heresies understood Simon to have been crucified in the place of Jesus. They couldn't have had a gospel narrative with the wording of Mark 15:22 in it:
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22 They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.
Nor Matthew 27:34 in it:
As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. 33 They came to a place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 34 There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it. 35 When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots. 36 And sitting down, they kept watch over him there. 37 Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is jesus, the king of the jews.
Nor Luke 23:28:
As the soldiers led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. 27 A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. 28 Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ 30 Then “‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!”’ 31 For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”
But notice that name 'Jesus' changes positioning in the three different accounts that otherwise only have 'he' throughout - i.e. it could have been another crucified one.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Ἰησοῦν ἐσταυρωμένον - What is the Evidence?

Post by davidbrainerd »

Secret Alias wrote:We know the heresies understood Simon to have been crucified in the place of Jesus. They couldn't have had a gospel narrative with the wording of Mark 15:22 in it:
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22 They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.
Nor Matthew 27:34 in it:
As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. 33 They came to a place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 34 There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it. 35 When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots. 36 And sitting down, they kept watch over him there. 37 Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is jesus, the king of the jews.
Nor Luke 23:28:
As the soldiers led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. 27 A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. 28 Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ 30 Then “‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!”’ 31 For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”
But notice that name 'Jesus' changes positioning in the three different accounts that otherwise only have 'he' throughout - i.e. it could have been another crucified one.
This is total BS. As it was from the opponents of christianity using it as a lame attack in ancient times.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Ἰησοῦν ἐσταυρωμένον - What is the Evidence?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Secret Alias wrote:We know the heresies understood Simon to have been crucified in the place of Jesus. They couldn't have had a gospel narrative with the wording of Mark 15:22 in it:
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. 22 They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”). 23 Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. 24 And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

Mark 15.21-22: 21 They press into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross. 22 Then they bring Him [αὐτὸν] to the place Golgotha, which is translated, Place of a Skull. 23 They tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh; but He did not take it. 24 And they crucify Him, and divide up His garments among themselves, casting lots for them to decide what each man should take.

ETA: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2463&p=55492#p55492.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ἰησοῦν ἐσταυρωμένον - What is the Evidence?

Post by Secret Alias »

Well there you go. I actually remember reading the connection between Mark and Basilides because of this. So I guess the follow up questions is - is any argument for the historicity of Jesus that relies upon the "slam dunk" of Jesus's crucifixion itself a "slam dunk"?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ἰησοῦν ἐσταυρωμένον - What is the Evidence?

Post by Secret Alias »

It is also interesting the manner in which 'Jesus' creeps into the sign on the cross:

Mark:
The King of the Jews
Luke:
This is the King of the Jews


Matthew:
This is Jesus, the King of the Jews
John:
Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Ἰησοῦν ἐσταυρωμένον - What is the Evidence?

Post by Secret Alias »

On scholarly study of Basilides using Mark, first Roukema:
Another conception of Jesus' supposed death is given by Basilides of Alexandria. Irenaeus (Against Heresies i.24.4) transmits the tradition that in Basilides' view Jesus had not been crucified at all, since Simon of Cyrene had taken his place. Basilides apparently deduced this from the Gospel of Mark, which first introduces Simon of Cyrene and subsequently says that they brought 'him' to Golgotha and crucified 'him' there (Mark 15:21–24). The context shows that 'him' refers to Jesus, because previously it is written, 'Then they led him out to crucify him' (Mark 15:20), and this is unmistakably about Jesus.
But Kelhoffer points us in the direction of Basilides using a gospel harmony starting with Irenaeus's account:
He [Christ] appeared on earth as a man and performed miracles (apparuisse eum . . . virtutes perfecisse). Thus, he himself did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled (Simonem quendam Cyrenaeum angariatum) to carry and erroneously crucified (et hunc . . . crucifixum), being transfigured by him ... [Jesus], so that (ut) he [Simon] might be thought to be Jesus. Moreover, Jesus assumed the form of Simon and stood by laughing at them.
Grant identifies the laughing to come from Psalm 2 but Kelhoffer goes on to note:
Apud Irenaeus, Basilides's Docetic christology appears to be based upon a conflation of material preserved in Mark 15:21" and the Matthean parallel." Mark has the (historic) present active indicative (ἀγγαρεύουσιν), which Matthew changed to the aorist (ἠγγάρευσαν). At the very least, the perfect passive participle reflected by Irenaeus (angariatus) stems from Irenaeus's use of Matthew and-or Mark or, perhaps, from a harmonized version of this gospel material.
Of course Basilides used a 'harmony.' The canonical texts are stacked in a manner that won't allow the substitution narrative to make sense. Even the Arabic Diatessaron doesn't work:
And the Jews took Jesus, and went away to crucify him. And when he bare his cross and went out, they stripped him of those purple and scarlet garments which he had on, and put on him his own garments. And while they were going with him, they found a man, a Cyrenian, coming from the country, named Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus: and they compelled this man to bear the cross of Jesus. And they took the cross and laid it upon him, that he might bear it, and come after Jesus; and Jesus went, and his cross behind him.

19 And there followed him much people, and women which were lamenting and raving. But Jesus turned unto them and said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me: weep for yourselves, and for your children. Days are coming, when they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the womb's that bare not, and the breasts that gave not suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do so in the green tree, what shall be in the dry?

24 And they brought with Jesus two others of the malefactors, to be put to death.

25 And when they came unto a certain place called The skull, and called in the Hebrew Golgotha, they crucified him there: they crucified with him these two malefactors, one on his right, and the other on his left. And the scripture was Arabic, fulfilled, which saith, He was numbered with the transgressors. And they gave him to drink wine and myrrh, and vinegar which had been mixed with the myrrh; and he tasted, and would not drink; and he received it not.

28 And the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and cast lots for them in four parts, to every party of the soldiers a part; and his tunic was without sewing, from the top woven throughout. And they said one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: and the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, They divided my garments among them, And cast the lot for my vesture.

30, This the soldiers did. And they sat and guarded him there. And Pilate wrote on a tablet the cause of his death, and put it on the wood of the cross above his head. And there was written upon it thus: THIS IS JESUS THE NAZARENE THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE Jews. And this tablet read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city: and it was written in Hebrew and Greek and Latin. And the chief priests said unto Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but, He it is that said, I am the King of the Jews. Pilate said unto them, What hath been written hath been written.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply