Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Giuseppe »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:07 am Hence the question: is the solar eclipse in the Gospel meant to hide the embarrassing fact of the previous myth?
Effectively, all in Mark seems to be designed to cover this embarrassing fact (the deliberate full transgression of Deut 21:23):

Jesus dies rapidly (with wonder by Pilate) in Mark versus the fact that the corpse was left for an entire night on the tree

Jesus is buried rapidly in loco in Mark versus the fact that he is never buried

The dead Jesus is hidden in a solar eclipse in Mark versus the fact that his corpse is seen for an entire night on the tree.

Jesus is recognized as Son of God at least by Joseph from Arimathea in Mark versus the fact that the only witnesses of the his death, the demons, didn't know him.



I would add an anti-nomian reading about the demons transgressing deliberately Deut 21:23: The Demiurge himself wanted transgress his same Law, since he wanted to curse deliberately the alien. But by doing so, he gained the only result of “cursing the land”, i.e. the his same Creation.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:57 amThe Internet Archive has Dillmann's 1877 edition: https://archive.org/details/ascensioisa ... ll/page/80. (I cannot seem to access the 1522 or 1832 editions.) It shows the following: Et princips mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium dei, et occidet illum, et suspendet illum in ligno et occidit nesciens qui sit.... So the killing is mentioned twice in L2, one instance of which is being taken as a scribal addition. You can see that Charles has the first instance bracketed in his edition: https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n199, calling it "an obvious interpolation" in footnote 8.

The actual situation, then, is not nearly as simple as either the translations (which seem almost universally to omit the first instance and retain the second, except for that Spanish one, apparently) or the quick summary of Marc Stéphane would lead us to believe.
Thanks Ben. I saw the footnote that "et occidet illum" was an interpolation, so I took it out. In retrospect, that was unfair towards Guiseppe, since it does lend support towards his interesting idea. I appreciate your analysis, as always!
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:20 amThe dead Jesus is hidden in a solar eclipse in Mark...
That phrase has such a wonderful mythic feel, especially for a proposed celestial Jesus! I love it! :notworthy: But Jesus doesn't actually die until after the darkness finishes at the ninth hour in Mark.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8788
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:57 am
There are two Latin versions. L1 does not cover this portion of the Ascension. L2 does, but derives from a single manuscript, according to R. H. Charles: https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n21 (lefthand page) . ..

I've been wondering why my super-scripted text sits so high (so high as to almost interfere with the line above). Now I know -

L1 . . vs . . L1

Thanks Ben :cheers:
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:43 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:57 am
There are two Latin versions. L1 does not cover this portion of the Ascension. L2 does, but derives from a single manuscript, according to R. H. Charles: https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n21 (lefthand page) . ..

I've been wondering why my super-scripted text sits so high (so high as to almost interfere with the line above). Now I know -

L1 . . vs . . L1

Thanks Ben :cheers:
Heh, no problem. I noticed that issue after the forum's "reboot" a while back when I had to fix some of the formatting in my older posts about gospel and epistolary texts. The old interface used to use the "super" tag, while the new one uses "sup" instead. Both work, but they sure sit differently on the line.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:05 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:57 amThe Internet Archive has Dillmann's 1877 edition: https://archive.org/details/ascensioisa ... ll/page/80. (I cannot seem to access the 1522 or 1832 editions.) It shows the following: Et princips mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium dei, et occidet illum, et suspendet illum in ligno et occidit nesciens qui sit.... So the killing is mentioned twice in L2, one instance of which is being taken as a scribal addition. You can see that Charles has the first instance bracketed in his edition: https://archive.org/details/cu31924014590529/page/n199, calling it "an obvious interpolation" in footnote 8.

The actual situation, then, is not nearly as simple as either the translations (which seem almost universally to omit the first instance and retain the second, except for that Spanish one, apparently) or the quick summary of Marc Stéphane would lead us to believe.
Thanks Ben. I saw the footnote that "et occidet illum" was an interpolation, so I took it out. In retrospect, that was unfair towards Guiseppe, since it does lend support towards his interesting idea. I appreciate your analysis, as always!
No problem. :) I agree that this is an interesting idea. The Ascension of Isaiah is one of those texts that just keeps on giving. :)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by DCHindley »

Per R H Charles' 1900 edition of Ascension of Isaiah:

9.14. And the god of that world will stretch forth * his hand against the Son,* and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will * slay * Him not knowing who He is.

Note: vs. 14. ... Will *slay* Him. So I have emended text with the guidance of S L2. MSS. = 'and will lay hands upon Him,' and transpose these words before 'and will crucify Him.'

L2: 9.14. Et princeps mundi illius extendet manum suam in filium |dei|, [et occidet Illum]8 et suspendet illum in ligno et occidet nesciens, qui sit.

Note 8: An obvious interpolation.

S (translated to Latin): 9.14. Et princeps mundi illius propter filium ejus extendet manus suas in eumt12 et suspendent13 illum in ligno, et* occidet eum nesciens14 qui sit.

Notes: 12 Corrupt. L2 here correct : cf. E.
13 L2 suspendet. Plural seems right: cf. E.
14 Better read occident eum nescientes as implied by E.

So, the Ethiopic has "the god of this world will lay hands upon him and crucify him ..." Both L2 and S(lavonic) have the order reversed and also says that what they did was "slay" him, not lay hands upon him.

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I wrote a response to David a few minutes ago, but made two mistakes: one about what Charles was claiming and another about what David was saying. I wish the notes were clearer, really. Post deleted.

Here are my translations of the Latin and of the Slavonic as rendered in Latin, as best I understand the original text (before emendations and such):

L2: And the prince of that world will extend his hand against the son [of God] and will slay him and hang him upon a tree and will slay him not knowing who he is.
S: And the prince of that world on account of his son will extend his hands against him and they will hang that one upon a tree and will slay him not knowing who he is.

Charles calls the Slavonic corrupt here for the phrase "on account of his son will extend his hands against him," and seemingly for good reason.

Here is the Ethiopic as best I understand it, but including the emendation by Dillmann (and not the transposition by Charles):

E: And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the son and will lay hands upon him and crucify him not knowing who he is.

Does that look right?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Martin Klatt

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Martin Klatt »

- - _ _
Last edited by Martin Klatt on Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:26 am, edited 18 times in total.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by iskander »

The rending of the veil is an elegant poetic licence that Mark uses to indicate the importance for believers of the execution of Jesus . The death of Jesus was as Winston Churchill might have said : "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. (Winston Churchill on the battle of Stalingrad)

Mark 15:38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. Two curtains hung in the temple to separate god from the needy. The death of Jesus removed the barrier which made God inaccessible to sinners. And the Promised Land , the land promised to the Israelites and conquered by Joshua , that insignificant plot of land, became for the marginal few the kingdom of heaven gifted to humanity by Jesus.

There is no proof because 'rending of the veil' is a legitimate literary way of underlining the importance of an event. Darkness and earthquakes, are like fireworks and the rending of the veil, darkness, tremors and risen dead are all of it a way of saying Jesus' death was very important .( for some)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1627&p=73436&hilit=fireworks#p73436



The " darkness" was not meant to hide anything, but to illuminate something.
Post Reply