Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:46 pm 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?
Luckily I had not read your now erased post, so no offense(?) taken! Whatever I posted was more for my own benefit that a Bobby Flay throwdown challenge to you, Ben! Your translation will always be better than Google translate is. :notworthy:

I have to subject what you have presented to consideration, but my quick & dirty analysis of the three key sources here, L2, S and Ethiopic texts, is as follows:

L2 (Latin version #2)
Google English translation of L2
S (Slavonic, translated into Latin by Bonwetsch)
Google English translation of Bonwetsch's Latin translation of Slavonic
Charles' English translation of the Ethiopic translation
9.14 9.14 9.14 9.14 9.14
Et and Et and And
princeps leader princeps leader the god
mundi world mundi world of that
illius that illius † that † world
propter for
filium son
ejus his
extendet spread extendet spread will stretch forth *
manum out manus hands his
suam his suas own hand
in in in in against
eum † 12 him † 12 the
filium son Son,*
| dei |, | the |;
[ et [and
occidet down
Illum ] 8 It ] 8
et and et and and
they
will
suspendet impale suspendent 13 hang 13 crucify
illum it illum it Him
in in in in on
ligno tree ligno, wood; a tree,
et and et * and * and
will *slay* (lit. "lay hands on")
Him
occidet down occidet down not
eum him
nesciens, knowing nesciens 14 knowing 14 knowing
who He is.
qui and qui and
sit. let it be. sit. let it be.

Unfortunately, the knowledge of the original texts must be so developed to make sense of R H Charles' comments, that pure amateurs such as us (even with all your advanced Latin knowledge) may never really comprehend.

However, I think this illustrates why Charles may have marked certain words and phrases as interpolations or emendations. I'll post tomorrow morning after I can look at the matter with fresh eyes, and I will offer my final word then (I promise :tomato: ).

DCH
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 »

Ben,

I think you have it nailed. I also remembered that M A Knibb offered a much newer English Translation 's translation of the Ethiopic manuscripts in Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vol 2, 1985):
14 And the god of that world will stretch out [his hand against the Son]p, and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree,q not knowing who he is.

Notes:
p Correction based on Lat2 (which adds "of God"); Eth "by the hand of his son"; Slav corrupt.
q "and they will lay ... a tree"; Lat2, Slav "and he will hang him upon a tree and kill him" (Slav "and they will hang ... and he will kill him").
That led me to start to cobble together my own really imperfect reconstructions (I will spare everyone) and then I think "why go way beyond Giuseppe's OP?" What I think is that the Ethiopic mss, against Latin (L2) and Slavonic (S), has two phrases related to the "hand," which could mean *either* kill someone (summary execution) or just apprehend someone (arrest as part of a process which implies a trial).

Maybe I am just as bad as Giuseppe about reading too much into what the experts say, yet the experts just don't seem to give a lot of detail about what exactly the original texts said, what exactly they considered errors, nor what exactly they actually did to those texts to emend them.

But to be fair, Charles does give the original Ethiopic text, identifies what words and phrases he questioned, and how he amended the text, but poor ol' me, does not read that stuff. Where's SA's African dancers when you need them?
Ethiopic text of 9.14 per Charles' critical apparatus (1900).png
Ethiopic text of 9.14 per Charles' critical apparatus (1900).png (41.57 KiB) Viewed 8037 times
Ethiopic text of 9.14 per Charles' critical apparatus (1900).png
Ethiopic text of 9.14 per Charles' critical apparatus (1900).png (41.57 KiB) Viewed 8037 times
But, answering Giuseppe's OP, the Ethiopic taxt kind of supports the idea that Jesus was killed before being hanged, and this might go back to a Greek original (G1 I think), but L2 & S both have a different underlaying Greek text (G2 I believe) that would not lend itself to that interpretation. There is a chance that G1, if it had been preserved here at 9:14, would support the Ethiopic translation, but nobody really knows.

DCH
Attachments
Notes to 9.14 in Charles' critical apparatus (1900).png
Notes to 9.14 in Charles' critical apparatus (1900).png (103.72 KiB) Viewed 8037 times
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 »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:46 pm Ben,

I think you have it nailed.
Thanks.
That led me to start to cobble together my own really imperfect reconstructions (I will spare everyone) and then I think "why go way beyond Giuseppe's OP?" What I think is that the Ethiopic mss, against Latin (L2) and Slavonic (S), has two phrases related to the "hand," ....
Yes, that seems to be the case.
Maybe I am just as bad as Giuseppe about reading too much into what the experts say, yet the experts just don't seem to give a lot of detail about what exactly the original texts said, what exactly they considered errors, nor what exactly they actually did to those texts to emend them.
That is because they are, in this case, writing for other experts. Where Charles talked about alterations to the Latin text, I was doing just fine; I could see what he was saying instantly, and which phrase(s) he was dealing with and/or moving around or bracketing; but where he talked about the Ethiopic, it was all too easy to get lost.
But, answering Giuseppe's OP, the Ethiopic taxt kind of supports the idea that Jesus was killed before being hanged, and this might go back to a Greek original (G1 I think), but L2 & S both have a different underlaying Greek text (G2 I believe) that would not lend itself to that interpretation. There is a chance that G1, if it had been preserved here at 9:14, would support the Ethiopic translation, but nobody really knows.
It feels like you may be discounting the Latin too quickly here. It does, after all, place one of its two instances of "slaying" before the crucifixion. Charles called that first instance "an obvious interpolation," bracketing/removing it and leaving the second instance. But Charles is surely laboring under the assumption that Jesus Christ was crucified first, with his death resulting as an eventual and direct consequence. What if the scribes were laboring under that same assumption? What if the very poor textual quality of this verse is a result of having to change an original in which Jesus was killed first, before being crucified, to the more customary understanding?

Original: And the prince of that world will extend his hand against the son and will slay him and hang him upon a tree not knowing who he is.
L2 [G2]: 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 [G2]: 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.
E [G1]: 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.

In this scenario the original text did not line up with Christian expectations. So L2 and S, on the G2 side of the diagram, endeavored to solve the problem by inserting the slaying at the "correct" spot. The slaying at the "incorrect" spot in L2 was just a scribal oversight (perhaps two manuscripts were compared and conflated: one with the fix and one without). On the G1 side of the diagram, the solution was to change the slaying into something less fatal, like laying hands upon him. Now the crucifixion itself bears the brunt of making sure the reader understands that Jesus was dead.

This scenario preserves the essential divide between G1 and G2 (since each side presents its own different solution to the problem), and I think it explains a lot. Am I wrong? It does not explain the garbled nature of part of the Slavonic ("on account of his son"), but I am not sure anything will cleanly explain that bit.

Not knowing Ethiopic, I am obviously handicapped here, so this can be no more than a mere suggestion for others to follow up on, but is there anything fatally wrong with it from the outset?

ETA: Here is Charles' diagram:

Vision of Isaiah Diagram.png
Vision of Isaiah Diagram.png (104.1 KiB) Viewed 8024 times
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Giuseppe »

Reading Jean Magne's article, I learn that there is the following reading of Asc of Is. 9:13-14 :


“En verité, il descendra dans le monde à la fin des jours le Seigneur (comprendre: Jesus-Sabaôth) qui sera appelé Christ après qu'il sera descendu et qu'il sera devenu semblable à notre forme et qu'on croira qu'il est chair et homme.
Et le dieu de ce monde
(Ialdabaôth) ètendra la main sur son fils (le résumé latin corrige: sur le Fils de Dieu) et ils (les archontes) porteront leurs mains sur lui, et ils le suspendront au bois sans savoir qui il est”.

(p. 39)


If I am translating well from French the verse 14 in Magne's translation, then Magne is saying that:

...the god of this world will stretch forth his hand against the his son and they will hang that one upon a tree not knowing who he is.

So Magne in the words preceding the verses:
]
7. - Jésus-Christ-Sabaôth fils de Dieu, Fils, Monogène, Verbe

Cependant le titre le plus décerné à Jésus dans le N.T., celui sur lequel les évangélistes insistent le plus - problablement parce qu'il fut le plus difficile à faire admettre aux juifs -, est celui de Fils de Dieu. D'où lui vient ce titre, en quel sens est-il fils, et de quel dieu est-il fils?

Le titre de Fils de Dieu ne peut guère venir à Jésus que de son identification à Sabaôth, fils du dieu créateur Ialdabaôth. Cette filiation est rappelée en effet dans une glose, qui dépend manifestement de Phil 2:6-11, insérée dans Asc. Is. 9:13-14 :

(my bold)


This would be the reason, per Magne, why in the synoptics Jesus is recognized by the demons (they know who is his father, Ialdabaôth) and he exorcizes them, while in the fourth Gospel Jesus exorcises only the sins and not the demons (since in the fourth gospel the Gnostic view is better preserved: the demons can't know who is the alien and they are left to their owner there where they stand: the demiurge).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Paul seems to infer this idea in Gal 3:13, writing:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”

This is in accordance with Jewish Law, per Deut 21:22-23:

And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Giuseppe »

There is a strong difference between this reading:
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:22 am
...the god of this world will stretch forth his hand against the his son and they will hang that one upon a tree not knowing who he is.

...and the following reading:

...the god of this world will stretch forth his hand against the Son of God and they will hang that one upon a tree not knowing who he is.


...since it means that in the first reading Jesus is son of the same god who kills him: he is the his “good” side.

Then the efforts of the interpolator, by adding “son of God”, were directed to emphasize the distinction between the killer and the killed, the evil god and the good god, by making the first Satan and the second the Son of the Creator.

The conclusion can only be, in this case, that the author of AoI was considering the Son as a deity who repents of his being the son of the evil “god of this world”.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is Jesus already dead before the cruxifixion?

Post by Giuseppe »

It seems that the Cathar version of AoI had this reading:

And the prince of that world will stretch forth his hand upon the Son of God and will kill Him and hang Him on a tree, and he will kill Him not knowing who He is

http://gnosis.org/library/Cathar-Vision-Isaiah.htm

Is not a coincidence the fact that the Cathars cursed the crucified “thing” ?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
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: Sat Oct 27, 2018 8:39 am It seems that the Cathar version of AoI had this reading:

And the prince of that world will stretch forth his hand upon the Son of God and will kill Him and hang Him on a tree, and he will kill Him not knowing who He is

http://gnosis.org/library/Cathar-Vision-Isaiah.htm

Is not a coincidence the fact that the Cathars cursed the crucified “thing” ?
Here is how the Cathars cursed the crucified one:
"Being transfigured, he put a demon in his place for the Passion. This is one of their secrets, and they took such a plague from the Saracens, who curse in the same way ".
...
"He gave his form to a demon, who had him crucified".

...
"He meant to tell the heretics that the Son of God was not crucified, but a thief under his features".

(Jean Duvernoy, Las religion des Cathares, p. 80)


In all the cases who is crucified is a corpse, a demon, a thief, a being of lower nature.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply