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.
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 »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:18 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:11 am Ok, but do you have Jewish (and/or Christian) evidence of this old ritual?
I'm not sure you need Jewish (and/or Christian) evidence of any non-Jewish ritual for that ritual to have influenced or have been modified for use by early Christians (whether for a short period or for longer).
I would like see evidence of a Jewish crucifixion ritual (more than a Pagan crucifixion ritual), since the myth of the expiatory sacrifice (linked to the crucifixion of Jesus) seems to me something enough Jewish.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
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. »

I would like see evidence of a Jewish crucifixion ritual (more than a Pagan crucifixion ritual), since the myth of the expiatory sacrifice (linked to the crucifixion of Jesus) seems to me something enough Jewish.
The Maccabean literature states that Antiochus IV Epiphanes had imposed the worship of Dionysus onto Jews. And while some Jews rejected such idolatry and strange worship, Diodorus and Plutarch state that in their time there were Jews who still worshiped Dionysus. And as you can see, a scene similar to the crucifixion was readily apart of Dionysic rituals.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
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 3:20 amThis may or may not be relevant, but the Acta Pauli et Antonini does speak of a mock performance by the Alexandrians satirizing Jewish messianic expectations, wherein which an effigy or actor representing the Jewish king would be paraded around, sustaining abuse both verbal and physical. These performances were so frequent that Hadrian ordered them to cease. And while it is not mentioned in the papyrus, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that it culminated in a mock crucifixion, similar to the Dionysus effigy shown above.
I think it is one thing to mock a Jewish king (the example goes back to Philo, In Flaccum, chap. (6), §§ 36-9, depicting a mock parade conducted around summer of 38 CE when newly minted king Agrippa, who was given Philips' Tetrarchy only at this point, passed through Alexandria on his way to Batanea, in which gentile residents grabbed a local village idiot, Carabbas, and put rough garments on him resembling a royal style robe, and imitation scepter and crown, lifted him on a bier, and paraded him around to be jeered) and actually depicting him being lynched by crucifixion. Gaius tweeted that the Alexandrian crowds were "jus' good ol' boys havin' fun!" and his governor in Egypt did not restrain them from their mocking.

The annual festival Hadrian restricted was that of the Roman "Saturnalia," in which masters and servants changed roles for the day - all in good fun mind you, as the masters voluntarily participated - described by Macrobius, Saturnalia, et al, which took place in a carnival atmosphere similar to what goes on annually in the Mardi Gras celebration in New Orleans, LA, USA, in modern times. This was held, in Rome, in winter (December 17-23). The roles may have been reversed, but no one was crucifying anyone in these carnivals, I don't think.

The Agrippa mocking was an Alexandrian response to his elevation to royalty by the emperor Gaius, and this occurred in summer. At best, this might relate to a festival similar to the Saturnalia, the Kronia, observed by the Athenians in late midsummer.

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. »

The text Acta Pauli et Antonini was specifically addressing performances done just prior to the Kitos revolt, and that Hadrian had ordered them to cease. I don't know if you're acknowledging this point or not, but I felt like reiterating it for clarity's sake. And if this was just a continuation of that which was done under Gaius--well, there you go!
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
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 6:08 am The text Acta Pauli et Antonini was specifically addressing performances done just prior to the Kitos revolt, and that Hadrian had ordered them to cease. I don't know if you're acknowledging this point or not, but I felt like reiterating it for clarity's sake. And if this was just a continuation of that which was done under Gaius--well, there you go!
Wasn't that mocking procession mentioned in Acta Pauli et Antonini supposed to have mocked the rebel "king" Loukuas?

I think you may be making too much of this.

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. »

I think you may be making too much of this.
And I think you're missing the point.

The issue raised by Giuseppe as to if there was a ritual involving crucifixion is satisfied by Galatians 3:1, wherein Paul states that before their [the Galatians'] eyes, Christ was portrayed as crucified, which would go along with what was happening at Alexandria--a mock performance satirizing the Jewish king, culminating with a crucifixion. And just so you're aware, I have Galatians at roughly 130 ad.

The text actually doesn't say who the king is. It may be Lukuas (and I believe it is) but it's interpreted as being the idea of a king executed, as opposed to an actual enthroned king.

Also, I even stated that this may or may not have relevance here, and brought it up merely as something to consider.
semiopen
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

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

Post by semiopen »

I had been thinking of starting a similar thread in the Jewish forum, mostly because I'm curious whether this (and similar topics) are being suppressed.

For example, there used to be a wiki article about Kratzmas - that is now just gone. Kratz is yiddish for scratch, and the idea is that the Jewish custom of going to a Chinese restaurant on Xmas Eve is a vestige of more anti-Christmas traditions. You can google Kratzmas (or Kratsmas) now and get hits but there used to be relatively serious discussions.

Regarding crucifixion, the politically correct position is that it was uniquely a Roman form of execution. That is debatable as this thread notes; although "old sacrificial rite" is inane (not to mention the decision that the topic ends up in the Christian forum).

The most interesting pre Yoshke crucifixion example is Josephus' description of the crucifixion of 800 Pharisees by Alexander_Jannaeus -
Josephus reports that Jannaeus brought 800 Pharisee rebels to Jerusalem and had them crucified, and had the throats of the rebel's wives and children cut before their eyes as Jannaeus ate with his concubines.[1][20][21]
There was a post in The Beginning of the Rabbinic Tradition -viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3455 where Charles Wilson was discussing this part of Josephus and didn't mention the crucifixions. I was going to note the oddness of this omission (I'd written some detailed commentary on this in FRDB) and was startled that google is now missing serious references to this.

For example, Geza Vermes has written important papers on this - Was Crucifixion a Jewish Penalty? - http://standpointmag.co.uk/text-april-1 ... eza-vermes One can find this by googling vermes crucifixion, but not so easy to find using other arguments.
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 »

I think (à la Dujardin) that if there was a crucifixion ritual, it could be done everywhere, in Corinth as in Alexandria as in Jerusalem as in Galatia. Accordingly, the human actor who emulated the mythological being ''Jesus Christ'' on the cross could change. And clearly he didn't die.

So we have as evidence:

1) the odes of Solomon
2) some controversial passages of Paul
3) some controversial passage in Philo

And then?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
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 6:54 am
I think you may be making too much of this.
And I think you're missing the point.

The issue raised by Giuseppe as to if there was a ritual involving crucifixion is satisfied by Galatians 3:1, wherein Paul states that before their [the Galatians'] eyes, Christ was portrayed as crucified, which would go along with what was happening at Alexandria--a mock performance satirizing the Jewish king, culminating with a crucifixion. And just so you're aware, I have Galatians at roughly 130 ad.

The text actually doesn't say who the king is. It may be Lukuas (and I believe it is) but it's interpreted as being the idea of a king executed, as opposed to an actual enthroned king.

Also, I even stated that this may or may not have relevance here, and brought it up merely as something to consider.
Joseph,

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.

Of coursetm, I incorrectly attribute such talk of a vicarious sacrifice of a redeemer figure Christ as the talk of a later editor/redactor who just wanted to bring Paul "up to date" with his own time, where any sort of historical Jesus had been (long ago? recently?) transformed into a divine redeemer named Christ.

However, I see this divine redeemer Christ who sacrifices his life for mankind as the natural development of the old belief among gentile followers of an earthly Jesus, who had himself advocated for the inauguration of a messianic age (maybe with himself as the anointed king, maybe someone else and this honor was projected onto him by his Jewish followers after his death), when unfortunate social circumstances/stresses occasioned by the 1st revolt caused these expectations to morph into something else entirely, something not revolutionary and thus throwing off any lingering associated with Judean rebellion, but a mystery religion.

This naturally dates the development of a divine redeemer after the revolt. How much after, well, that's a matter of opinion. On the other hand, I have no qualms about dating an original Paul, who I do NOT think knew anything about "our" Jesus at all, or even spoke about an anointed ruler who would inaugurate a kingdom of God, but was only concerned with finding a way for gentiles who revered the Judean God and hoped to be able to participate in the blessed age promised to Abraham's "seed" (when it came, and likely via resurrection from the dead) be able to do so via his "faith like Abraham" argument, to the 1st century CE.

Not every Judean of the Diaspora was so generous in making the promise available to gentiles on the basis of Abrahamic style faith only, which was Paul's own "good news," and this provides the context for those who were opposing him, who were offering an alternative "good news" that the blessings were indeed available to gentiles, but *only after some token of conversion* (law observance and circumcision), which the original Paul was dead-set against.

My imaginary editor/redactor's mystery religion also had its own unique "good news" about the universal redemption available through the vicarious death & resurrection of Jesus Christ. "Good news" was not a term restricted to Christians, but was used all the time of emperors, etc. "Vote for me and I'll set ya' free!" (lyric from the Temptations' song "Ball of Confusion"). Naturally, the "vote" in their case was a vote of confidence for the course of rule an emperor has wrested from the hands of others by force of arms.

In my feeble and iggorant brain, I have imagined that Cephas, James & John were a trio of priests in Jerusalem who controlled the acceptance of free-will gifts made by Judeans of the Diaspora. Paul was hoping to get them to accept gifts (the offering for the poor so often referred to in his letters) from his faithful gentiles *as if* they were from Judeans by physical descent of full conversion. They had tentatively set conditions to do so, but seem to have waffled a bit in the face of the strong opposition to Paul's position, which Paul calls them to answer for.

That the later editor/redactor happened to conveniently identify them with Peter, James & John known in his "Christian" (mystery religion) tradition which we also come across in the Gospels and Acts (although these may have come into the form we know them now after the letters were redacted, IMHO), as part of his "updating" strategy for Paul's letters.

Those guys ... :goodmorning:

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. »

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.
Post Reply