What is the evidence that the crucifixion was an old sacrificial rite?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: What is the evidence that the crucifixion was an old sacrificial rite?

Post by DCHindley »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:53 pm
I'm not meaning to be quarrelsome. But I think there is a LOT of distance (both in miles/kilometers & worldview) between what goes on in Alexandria and what goes on in Galatia. In Gatatians I do not see so much a royal figure being portrayed as portrayed as crucified as the divine redeemer, which I would say is a figure more relevant to a mystery religion than a historical event.
Not only did you miss the point, you're attempting to apply it in a way that I myself did not intend to.

Giuseppe asked if there was evidence for a crucifixion ritual or performance. I offered one circumstantial piece of evidence. I never said, hinted at, or implied that this had anything to do with what Paul wrote in Gal 3:1. It would only serve as a witness, when taking Paul's words at face value, that indeed such performances were done.
To be honest, I can never figure out the point of most posts here, especially Giuseppe's. Sometimes yours as well, but you do redeem yourself once and a while. I'll withhold the post I am thinking of, for fear it might go to your head.

I think there is ZERO evidence that there was some sort of (pre-Christian) "crucifixion ritual" in the ANE region (and let's throw in Syria, Egypt, N. Africa, and anywhere in Europe), despite what Frazer thought/said. Evidence for stuff like that in the Americas or areas not in especially close contact with the Romans (like China, yes, China, I don't care anything about the silk trade, etc., as the intermediaries were Indians, who I don't think had such a ritual either). Don't even speak of Africa, as Romans were not especially knowledgeable about anything south of the Sahara or Ethiopia.

Now why you want to say that Galatians talk about the crucifixion being previously described graphically to the readers has nothing to do with a crucifixion ritual is beyond me. Since I know Giuseppe doesn't believe there was a flesh and bones Jesus, any talk of him that sounds like it is about a flesh & bones Jesus must be describing a heavenly Jesus. Lovejoy and the Marxists had made their best case for a pre-christian Jesus and a myth to go with it a century ago. I have respect for the Marxist POV, and Lovejoy may make some valid points, but I am not convinced by them. Oh, I have a weird and has-to-be-wrong POV of my own, but I don't talk about it using categorical terms like many here do.

Instead of castigating us all for being too stooped to see the obvious (that is, your opinion, which of course is correct as can be) or read your mind, when you speak of "crucifixion ritual" make sure we can tell whether you are really interested in the crucifixion or the ritual itself. Personally, I think they go together like peanut butter and jelly. If you have a ritual crucifixion than a description of that crucifixion is describing a ritual, but I don't think we have that. If you have a crucifixion ritual, though, any description of the crucifixion part has to refer to a real one or to a non-physical one.

Weren't you around here, or FRDB, years back?

DCH
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: What is the evidence that the crucifixion was an old sacrificial rite?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Okay, a lot to unpack here, so I'll address each point in their turn.
I think there is ZERO evidence that there was some sort of (pre-Christian) "crucifixion ritual" in the ANE region (and let's throw in Syria, Egypt, N. Africa, and anywhere in Europe), despite what Frazer thought/said. Evidence for stuff like that in the Americas or areas not in especially close contact with the Romans (like China, yes, China, I don't care anything about the silk trade, etc., as the intermediaries were Indians, who I don't think had such a ritual either). Don't even speak of Africa, as Romans were not especially knowledgeable about anything south of the Sahara or Ethiopia.
Why would Rome have such a singular importance here? Religion did not spring up in Rome, nor was crucifixion a strictly Roman practice. What's more, these countries [Italy, Greece, Phrygia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt) are all in close proximity to each other, and syncretism, especially after Egypt became an opened country to trade, was wide spread. What's more is that the evolution of language hints at a broader cultural and religious origin with eastern countries, like India, and show that, phonetically, these religions are interconnected.

As for crucifixion rituals: I have already given evidence for Osiris and Dionysus being ritually placed upon cross-shaped structures, and that these were themselves linked to the mysteries of their respective cultures.
Now why you want to say that Galatians talk about the crucifixion being previously described graphically to the readers has nothing to do with a crucifixion ritual is beyond me. Since I know Giuseppe doesn't believe there was a flesh and bones Jesus, any talk of him that sounds like it is about a flesh & bones Jesus must be describing a heavenly Jesus. Lovejoy and the Marxists had made their best case for a pre-christian Jesus and a myth to go with it a century ago. I have respect for the Marxist POV, and Lovejoy may make some valid points, but I am not convinced by them. Oh, I have a weird and has-to-be-wrong POV of my own, but I don't talk about it using categorical terms like many here do.
"Now why you want to say that Galatians talk about the crucifixion being previously described graphically to the readers has nothing to do with a crucifixion ritual is beyond me."

I honestly cannot understand what you're saying here. I do think it's possible that Paul is referring to such a ritual, especially in light of the fact the, unless the crucifixion was an entirely celestial event (which, likewise, I also think), there was no other way for the Galatians, as removed from Judea as Alexandria, to witness the crucifixion. Yet Paul states that this occurred, before their eyes, as an actual portrayal, and not as a Biblical interpretation.

What do Marxists have to do with this? I'm sceptical of a historical Jesus, and I'm not a Marxist. (Socialist, if you care). But I do see that there was a preeminent Logos/Metatron/Moses concept prior to Christianity's emergence in the second century. This may have been attached to a historical figure, or someone was claiming to be this figure. But insofar as a Gospel Jesus: absolutely not.
Instead of castigating us all for being too stooped to see the obvious (that is, your opinion, which of course is correct as can be) or read your mind, when you speak of "crucifixion ritual" make sure we can tell whether you are really interested in the crucifixion or the ritual itself. Personally, I think they go together like peanut butter and jelly. If you have a ritual crucifixion than a description of that crucifixion is describing a ritual, but I don't think we have that. If you have a crucifixion ritual, though, any description of the crucifixion part has to refer to a real one or to a non-physical one.
My intent and usage of the Acta was clear, based on my preemptive use of "may or may not be relevant." My interest in this was a passing thought experiment to see if it may be possible. Personally, I'm unsure, though the circumstantial evidence is there.

What's more, you were initially the one hostile towards myself when you said I was making too much it, when I wasn't making ANYTHING out of it. I was simply bringing it up as another point to consider.
Weren't you around here, or FRDB, years back?
No. I only made this account a couple months ago. Before I would visit the site but not comment or post.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: What is the evidence that the crucifixion was an old sacrificial rite?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Here's something else. The infamous Orpheus amulet, dated to the second-third century ad, shows a man upon a cross with the crescent moon and seven stars over him. The inscription, ORPHEOS BAKKIKOS, meaning Orpheus becomes Bacchus, which is fitting as Orpheus was believed to have introduced the mysteries of Bacchus/Dionysus. So those initiated into the Orphic mysteries likewise had to undergo a similar procedure, so as to become Bacchus. And this goes along well with what Paul says:
"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." ~ Gal 2:20
This coming just before he states that Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified--which is a rather bizarre way to describe a crucifixion. Here it seems that this is only analogous to a crucifixion, and not an actual crucifixion.

And as has already been shown, the act of placing Dionysus (in effigy) upon a cross was already preeminent, going back to at least the fifth century bc, when most of these vases were made.
Attachments
IMG_0012.JPG
IMG_0012.JPG (68.33 KiB) Viewed 3343 times
IMG_0010.GIF
IMG_0010.GIF (150.58 KiB) Viewed 3347 times
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: What is the evidence that the crucifixion was an old sacrificial rite?

Post by neilgodfrey »

When did the image of a crucified Christ become the familiar sign of Christianity? I think in the first two-three centuries we see Jesus depicted in art as a shepherd, a young boy, but not crucified. Or have I terribly overlooked something obvious?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: What is the evidence that the crucifixion was an old sacrificial rite?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:25 am When did the image of a crucified Christ become the familiar sign of Christianity? I think in the first two-three centuries we see Jesus depicted in art as a shepherd, a young boy, but not crucified. Or have I terribly overlooked something obvious?
Hey Neil.

As far as I'm aware, the cross wasn't artistically depicted until the third century, while the earliest known depiction of the crucifixion was fifth century.

There is also the second century graffiti showing a man worshipping a crucified man with the head of an ass. While this is interpreted as a mockery of Christianity (Tertullian likewise disputes that Christians don't worship an ass), it may hint at a synthesis between Christianity and the mysteries of Isis, wherein the ass represented the lower stage of spiritual being (as per Apuleius' The Golden Ass).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: What is the evidence that the crucifixion was an old sacrificial rite?

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:13 am it may hint at a synthesis between Christianity and the mysteries of Isis, wherein the ass represented the lower stage of spiritual being (as per Apuleius' The Golden Ass).
Thanks for this. Curiously, in Octavius of Minucius Felix, the apologist seems clearly embarrassed about the fact that Octavius is going to hear recent (surely: Gospel) news about the man adored by Minucius Felix that make him crucified as a criminal by the Romans on this earth.
I suspect that in these recent stories there was a lot of ''Jesuophobia'', the technical term coined by Robert Price to allude to the doctrine of these Christians who cursed the Christ ''according to flesh'' in their rituals, evidently because he ''represented the lower stage of spiritual being (as per Apuleius' The Golden Ass)''.

Remember that one of the more strong reasons, for an adorer of Jesus Christ, to euhemerize him on the earth is precisely the will of representing the ''lower stage of spiritual being'' behind the image of the crucified Christ.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply