Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html


Herod can't be the "king" who is meant, since he was not more king of Judea in the time of Pilate.

So, if the "king" is Herod, then Jesus was crucified on a tree by him in Galilee (ruled by Herod), not in Jerusalem.

In alternative, the "king" may be the same "adversary": the "children of Israel" give Jesus to himself who had "roused" them.

The first interpretation is more probable: Herod is meant as "king", but not Pilate. And the place of the death is the Galilee. This tradition shows itself again in Luke (with the famous "ping pong" between Pilate and Herod).

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:25 am

18. And when He had grown up he worked great signs and wonders in the land of Israel and of Jerusalem.

19. And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).

20. In Jerusalem indeed I was Him being crucified on a tree:

21. And likewise after the third day rise again and remain days.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... nsion.html


Herod can't be the "king" who is meant, since he was not more king of Judea in the time of Pilate.

So, if the "king" is Herod, then Jesus was crucified on a tree by him in Galilee (ruled by Herod), not in Jerusalem.

In alternative, the "king" may be the same "adversary": the "children of Israel" give Jesus to himself who had "roused" them.

The first interpretation is more probable: Herod is meant as "king", but not Pilate. And the place of the death is the Galilee. This tradition shows itself again in Luke (with the famous "ping pong" between Pilate and Herod).

Far more likely: this is just like the gospel of Peter and, to some extent, that of Luke. The king is Herod, the place of crucifixion is Jerusalem, it is Herod who passes sentence, the Jews who carry it out (not Pilate), and the historical plausibility is near zero.

ETA: There is also chapter 21 of the Didascalia: "For he who was a heathen and of a foreign people, Pilate the judge, did not consent to their deeds of wickedness, but took water and washed his hands, and said, 'I am innocent of the blood of this man.' But the people answered and said, 'His blood be upon us, and upon our children,' and Herod commanded that He should be crucified; and our Lord suffered for us on the Friday."

It escapes me why you consider more old the Gospel of Peter than this story from AoI. The causal link is:

AoI (Herod kills Jesus in Galilee)---> GPeter (Jesus dies in Galilee?)---->Luke (Herod was "coincidentially" in Jerusalem) etc.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:45 am It escapes me why you consider more old the Gospel of Peter than this story from AoI. The causal link is:

AoI (Herod kills Jesus in Galilee)---> GPeter (Jesus dies in Galilee?)---->Luke (Herod was "coincidentially" in Jerusalem) etc.

I am not asserting that the gospel of Peter is older than the Ascension; I think that they are telling much the same passion story, and I do not see the text you are apparently reading.

Where in the Ascension of Isaiah does Herod kill Jesus in Galilee? And where in the gospel of Peter does Jesus die in Galilee? Please show me the texts so that I may add them to my list of alternate places for the death of Jesus: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1660. Honestly, I would love to add Galilee to that list; but I am not going to accept crappy guesses as "evidence" of it being a viable alternative.

ETA: Of course, if this part of the Ascension is an interpolation, it certainly could be later than the gospel of Peter.

Excuse me. Also this escaped me of the passage above:


the passage seems suspect: why did the author use an entire verse only to specify that the place is Jerusalem? Contra factum that Herod could not be there?
Could the same author/interpolator realize the inconsistency between Herod as killer and Jerusalem as place of death?

Or the "king" was not Herod.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:58 am Excuse me. Also this escaped me of the passage above:

In Jerusalem indeed I was Him being crucified on a tree:

the passage seems suspect: why did the author use an entire verse only to specify that the place is Jerusalem? Contra factum that Herod could not be there?
Could the same author/interpolator realize the inconsistency between Herod as killer and Jerusalem as place of death?

Or the "king" was not Herod.

So... no evidence, then. Just a general sense of discontent. Thanks.

yes, discontent:

my point is that the "king" can't be Herod insofar Jerusalem is the place of death.

Or vice versa, Jerusalem can't be the place of death insofar Herod is the "king" killer.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:09 ammy point is that the "king" can't be Herod insofar Jerusalem is the place of death.

Or vice versa, Jerusalem can't be the place of death insofar Herod is the "king" killer.

Yes, I know that is your point, but the gospel of Peter and the Didascalia demonstrate that your point is completely invalid, at least on its own. It was perfectly possible to consider Herod the king as the one responsible for Jesus' death in Jerusalem. The gospel of Peter and the Didascalia demonstrate that you need more than the historical observation that Herod (Antipas) was not the king of Jerusalem to suggest either that the king in a text was not Herod or that the city or locale in a text was not Jerusalem.

My issue with your OP is not the bare idea that maybe some early Christian thought of Jesus as having been slain in Galilee. That is fine. My issue is that king Herod having Jesus crucified in Jerusalem was not even one of the options in your OP, despite the presence of that exact combination in other texts. Your discontent, in other words, was coming either from a place of ignorance or from a deeply seated prejudice against one or more of the possibilities.

Still have it, that sense of discontent, after all of this? Great. Then pursue it. Show some evidence. But at least, in the process, deal with the texts that place king Herod in conjunction with the crucifixion in Jerusalem. Show all of the options, not just the two that appeal the most to you personally.

Giuseppe, why don’t you mention the connection between this fragment and AoI 9:14-16 which you discussed recently? Both fragments discuss Jesus’ arrest, crucifixion and survival. Chapter 9 is more specific as it mentions the ‘princeps mundi ilius propter filium ejus’ (the king of that world through his son) as the one(s) who arrest Jesus, while in chapter 11 only ‘the king’ (or emperor) is mentioned. So in chapter 11 we have to make the inference ourselves: Titus as the closest co-worker of king Vespasian (in fact they ruled as co-emperors) or king Vespasian with his son Titus as his deputy.

This is not an intra-Jewish affair. And Jerusalem was the paradigmatic place where things were foreseen to happen, and happened as a result.