Gospels Cut from Jewish Scriptures, #7 (conclusion)

22 thoughts on “Gospels Cut from Jewish Scriptures, #7 (conclusion)”

1. Hi Neil,
   about the midrashical source of the crucifixion, Maurice Mergui thinks that it is the Jewish legend alluded implicitly in Numbers 21:9, i.e. that the Genesiac Serpent was ‘cursed’/crucified by the Jewish god, “This bronze snake put on a pole evokes the miracolous victory of the Messiah on the eschatological Serpent”.

   Another OT character cursed by YHWH is Cain, and the famous ‘mark of Cain’ (Genesis 4:15) is supposed to be a tau, too. Hence note the curious coincidence of the presence, in both the episodes (the divine punition of the Genesiac Serpent and Cain), of the sequence: (1) question (2) answer (3) cursing/crucifixion? In the case of Cain, I may add: (4) glorification.

   The same sequence found in the pivotal Gospel episode:

   So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.
   “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.
   “You have said so,” Jesus replied.
   [Pilate] had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

   The reason behind this enigmatic midrash, according to Mergui, is the passage beyond the Limit (curiously, the same name of the cosmic cross where the Valentinians placed the Passion of the Aeon Christ): when the Messiah is confused with the Genesiac Serpent (enemy of YHWH), it is the final apocalyptic signum that he has “really” arrived.

   Reply

   1. The tables in these posts are not comprehensive. Their main contribution is that they attempt to cover all the gospels in their entirety and demonstrate their close relationship with Jewish Scriptures and other writings.

      For further details, see the list of Howard Clark Kee’s 160 scriptural quotations and allusions to Mark 11-16 alone in https://vridar.org/2017/05/01/160-scriptural-quotations-and-allusions-in-mark-11-16/

      Then there is Karel Hanhart’s case for the tomb carved from the rock itself being a midrash on Isaiah 22’s lament over the destruction of the temple — https://vridar.org/2014/04/18/jesus-crucifixion-as-symbol-of-destruction-of-temple-and-judgment-on-the-jews/

      And Rikki Watts has written a book detailing but one gospel’s debt to the Book of Isaiah and the theme of the Second Exodus.

      And several have developed Paul’s pointer to the Binding of Isaac (along with Deuteronomy’s curse passage) as a key source of the Passion of Christ — as does Mergui, also, in Etranger sur la Toit and Comprendre les Origines… He does mention briefly the serpent of Moses as a probability, too, but not to the exclusion of other references.

      I would be very surprised if Mergui turned to a Valentinian concept. You did not supply any sources for your comment.

      Reply

      1. Some precisations:
         1) Mergui says explicitly, in his book
         Comprendre les origines du christianisme , that “probably” the midrashical source of the crucifixion is the crucifixion of the Genesiac Serpent by YHWH.

         2) Mergui says explicitly that the enigmatic midrash “crucified Jesus== cruxified Genesiac Serpent” is explained as “Passage beyond the Limit”: the Messiah appears at the culmination of “anomía”, i.e. when the maximum evil is confused with maximum good, Jesus with Barabbas, the Messiah with the Genesiac Serpent, the same heresy (=Barabbas is a rival Jesus) “proves” that the End is Near “therefore” the Messiah is arrived.

         3) I, not Mergui, have made only 2+2: the Valentinians talked about the Passion of the Aeon beyond the cosmic Horos/Stauros in outer space: a celestial cross called also LIMIT. Coincidence?

         The Valentinians and in general the anti-YHWH “heretics” identified Jesus with the Genesiac Serpent, or Cain. In short, the Genesiac Serpent is a friend of humanity, etc. Coincidence?

         Apart from this, I see a curious anomaly in Mergui. He seems to be eager to talk like you: the Gospels are 100% midrash, etc. But he has realized that the crucifixion can be explained “probably” (his precise word) as reference to the fate of the Genesiac Serpent. The obvious “embarrassment” (afterall, the Serpent is Satan, isn’t he?) is deliberate, according to Mergui. But is the same Mergui embarrassed by this his finding?

         Reply

      2. And how could I have overlooked the Elijah-Elisha source for the synoptic gospels per Adam Winn and Thomas Brodie!

         Reply

2. I don’t condemn your appeal to Brodie and Winn. I am only pointing out that, when it deals with the midrashical origin of crucifixion, the possible options are very limited, in terms of OT candidates for midrash. I think that Mergui is on something when he identifies the source in the bronze snake’s allusion to a crucifixion of the Genesiac Serpent. The interesting raised question is: was it an audacious move by a pious Jew, to replace on the cross the “cursed” Genesiac Serpent with the “beloved” Jesus? Or was it a desperate apologetical expedient to exorcize the threat represented by rival Christians, the Ophites or Naassenes, known to be adorers of the Genesiac Serpent as supreme god?

   It is not a case that Mergui and Magne are both French authors.

   Reply

   1. My remark on the Elijah/Elisha intertext was a general comment and not addressing your point specifically.

      Have you read Mergui’s Comprendre in full? He has quite different answers to the question you raise.

      Reply

3. Are you sure? I have made it clear that he doesn’t mention the Valentinian Limit/Horos nor the idea that the early Christians adored the Genesiac Serpent.

   He says expressly that the midrashical origin of crucifixion is “probably” the fate of the Genesiac Serpent on a pole, as cursed by YHWH. How can you deny it, if the Mergui’s book is in your hands?

   Reply

   1. We are talking past each other. I have never denied Mergui wrote what I just said he wrote. I have to conclude I do not understand what you are driving at and it appears you do not understand me, either.

      Reply

      1. Then you should agree with me that (1) Mergui thinks that the Gospel Jesus is crucified because the Genesiac Serpent is crucified; (2) Mergui explains this enigmatic midrash (“enigmatic” as, for a Jew, the Genesiac Serpent is a negative character hence not exactly the best candidate to serve as midrashical source) by his concept of “Passage beyond the Limit” (in short, the Messiah appears when he is confused with the Genesiac Serpent).

         Hence, my question for you is: is the Mergui’s explanation sufficient to explain a similar midrash? Or a best explanation requires the assumption that there were already, when the Gospels eere written, adorers of the Genesiac Serpent as a positive character? In the latter case, our Gospels are apologies to save the goodness and supremacy of YHWH.

         I don’t know the right answer. I am curious to know your opinion.

         Reply

         1. I still don’t know what you are driving at. I think we are exploring different questions. If you are aiming at a celestial origin of the crucified Christ (as I think you might be from other forums) and that you are referring to Valentinian teachings as some form of evidence for this view, then that’s a question I am not interested in pursuing. I don’t think we are looking at the same question.

            If you are bouncing off something Mergui said then you are better off discussing your view and questions with him, not me. I don’t hold the same views and I think there is some overreach in your interpretation of what Mergui writes.

            Mergui writes:

            Il est d’ailleurs probable que l’origine du symbole de la croix soit le serpent cloué sur l’arbre de la Genèse OU sur l’étendard de Nb 21,9 et qui évoque la victoire miraculeuse contre le serpent eschatologique qui s’oppose au messie.

            It is over-reach to jump from that to stating on the basis of the first part of the sentence alone (the part before “OU”)

            “Mergui thinks that the Gospel Jesus is crucified because the Genesiac Serpent is crucified”

            Mergui further lists other midrashic elements behind the crucifixion of Jesus. My interest in Mergui’s discussion goes no further than what Mergui himself is suggesting and in my own interests. That’s why you are better off raising your queries with Maurice M himself.

            Reply

            1. Neil, that ‘ou’ (or) is not AUT. Really, Mergui is clearly interpreting the Bronze Snake raised on a pole by Moses as the image of the crucified Genesiac Serpent. Both the Serpents are alluding to Satan, according to Mergui (read in his own context). Hence you can’t say: Jesus replaces the Bronze Snake as both are salvific figures.

               I am only curious about this Mergui’s concept of ‘Passage beyond the Limit’ (advanced by him to justify the enigmatic midrash from the Serpent’s crucifixion). Is it true that ‘rampant heresy’ would “prove” the coming end, according to Jews of the time ?
               If you know something about this, I would be curious… All here.

               Reply

               1. I am correct to attribute to Mergui the expression:
                  “Mergui thinks that the Gospel Jesus is crucified because the Genesiac Serpent is crucified”

                  Reply

               2. If you have questions about Mergui’s meaning and implications then it is better for you to ask him since I do not understand the basis for your questions. We cannot even read a straightforward sentence in French with a common understanding.

                  Reply

                  1. Thanks for the advice but I don’t follow it. I think that Mergui has explained sufficiently his reasons to accept the apparent contradiction of the fact that a pious adorer of YHWH replaced the crucified Genesiac Serpent (=an enemy of YHWH) with the crucified Messiah of YHWH.

                     Despite of the apparent reciprocal misunderstanding, I am grateful again and again to signal a basilar difference of approach between you and me:

                     I note that the authors as Mergui, Charbonnel and yourself are satisfied by a complete explanation of the Gospels by appealing to previous NEUTRAL previous literature (the Jewish bible, Homer, et similia).

                     Also I appeal willingly to NEUTRAL previous literature to explain the Gospels, but I appeal also to RIVAL contemporary literature (rival messianism about John the Baptist, rival christianity about ‘Bar-Abbas’, rival propaganda about Simon Magus and his woman Helen, et similia).

                     This difference explains the apparent misunderstanding.

4. It seems clear that the gospels were intended/written/designed to be scripture. They were not casual/fanciful/serious histories of anything. They were vehicles to promote a certain understanding of a theological nature. That they borrowed so heavily from other writings is support for this hypothesis.

   As to the “thieves” that Jesus was crucified with, is this not another misunderstanding? Were not insurrectionist Jews/sicari/etc. referred to frequently as “robbers?” So, there were three insurrectionists being executed as a set piece (Jesus claiming to be King of the Jews, etc.)?

   Reply

   1. Forgive me, but you got me thinking and I’m getting wordy….

      The word translated “thieves” and “robbers” in some Bibles can also mean “insurrectionists”. Josephus uses the word (λῃσταί / lestai) for insurrectionists but it does have a broader usage, too. Your point about the meaning of the word is correct. It covers both meanings: insurrectionist/revolutionary and criminal/robber/bandit.

      I hesitate to say the translation as “robbers” is a misunderstanding, though. So often when I read a scholarly case for why the word should be translated “insurrectionists” it is in the context of attempting to justify why a historical Jesus, otherwise deemed a good man, should be crucified at all. The notion that he was confused, historically, with a political subversive because he taught about a coming Kingdom of God and implied that he would be its king sounds plausible, perhaps. Some scholars have sought to find historicizing comparisons with historical rebels.

      There is a more appropriate theological (as opposed to historicizing) explanation, I think.

      The theological message that the evangelists sent was that the messiah was crucified — in the view of his oppressors — as a sinner like them, but also a “mock messiah” or mock/false/failed king. The emphasis is on failure, false, mock, not on conspiratorial or subversive political activity. One is a theological explanation, the other a political-historicist one that is alien, I think, to the gospels.

      If the evangelists were inspired by the OT, then the following is relevant:

      The Septuagint in Isaiah 53:12 says he was counted among the “lawless” (ανόμοις). The Hebrew text says he was numbered among “the transgressors/rebels” (from “pasha”) — with “rebel” being one of its meaning, along with “transgressor”.

      If Josephus was an influence, then it is significant that he often (not always) uses “lestes” for political rebels.

      When the gospels depict Jesus as an “ironical (failed) king” (as in Pilate’s titulus crucis), I believe it is because of the secret irony of the theological message: “those who are with Jesus ‘know’ that by being nailed to the cross he is being enthroned as the real king or messiah”.

      Barabbas was a “lestes” – the atonement substitute. As a substitute for Jesus it would be appropriate to see him as one thought by followers to be a rightful king, as well as to see him as a general all round sinner.

      But the primary message is on Jesus becoming a “sinner” substitute for us, to have the penalty of sinners transferred to him. The message to James and John (who wanted to share Jesus’ glory on his right and left) is that of shared suffering; the message of the penitent thief is the wisdom message that the one who rebukes a neighbour in his sin will be with God.

      The message of the two crucified lestes with Jesus is both: common lawless sinner and sharing in the mock identity as a “king”.

      But the notion of political rebellion that led to that “false king” is absent. The comparison is made between true and false identity/roles. It is not a warning against political activity against Rome. The message is theological, not political.

      Reply

5. Charbonnel prefers that she be identified as a proponent of the midrashic hypothesis rather than as a proponent of mythicism.

   • “L’hypothèse midrashique”. Le Champ du Midrash (in French NOW TRANSLATED by Google Translate).

   The midrashic hypothesis is fairly straightforward to formulate. Since the early Christian texts have all the characteristics of midrashic literature, are they not simply midrash?

   Through the hundreds of studies and articles on this site, the answer to this question is positive and can be formulated as follows:

   • The New Testament is a text of the same nature as the Jewish midrash. It is an extension of it.

   • It operates permanently under the double cartel regime.

   • It deals with eschatology and cannot provide a basis for any historical element.

   • All of its materials are already present in the Jewish midrash.

   • The many pericopes (narrative units) that make up the Gospels can be reduced to a very small number of generic pericopes. These stem pericopes deal with the entry of the pagans into the Sinai covenant and the lightening of the Law.

   • Healings form the central core of the Gospels. The stories of childhood and the Passion are also midrashim.

   • These healings are a metaphor for the entry of the Gentiles into the divine covenant. To heal is always to heal from idolatry.

   • The theme of the lightening of the Law is an extension of internal debates within Judaism, as the midrash on Ruth attests.

   • The writers of the New Testament produce their narratives according to real specifications. Their lexicon and rhetoric obey a relatively rigid code.

   • Christianity was built on a univocal reading of texts with double understanding. As a result of three major translations, and the loss of the Midrashic reading key, the current reader has no way of returning to the original meaning. He is condemned to a naive and historicizing reading of the New Testament.

   Reply

   1. I have emphasized the “midrashic” character of Charbonnel’s thesis from the outset. The first posts in the series were all dedicated to her discussion of “midrashic techniques” of various kinds. I don’t like to be “identified” as a mythicist, either, but that doesn’t change the fact that I do not believe there is support in the ancient sources for a historical Jesus. Charbonnel also clearly does not believe in a historical Jesus behind the gospels and in that sense she is also a “mythicist” by the normal meaning of that term. Her midrashic thesis is her explanation for how the Jesus of the gospels came about. Other “mythicists” have different hypotheses.

      Reply
6. Pingback: Jesus Christ Created as an Epitome of Old Testament Figures (1) — Charbonnel and Jésus-Christ, Sublime Figure de Papier – Vridar
7. Pingback: Jesus’ Death as the Death of the People of God: Communion and Passion – Vridar
8. Pingback: Clarification of the Thesis — a review of Writing with Scripture, part 8 – Vridar
9. Pingback: The 7 Last Words of Jesus in Context | DJWCreates.com

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.