Search This Blog

Monday, August 9, 2010

How Did the Earliest Christians Understand the Death of Jesus?

In previous posts, I have argued that the meaning attached to the death of Jesus by the earliest Christians bore similarities to the concepts of sacrifice, and even human sacrifice, that were prevalent in ancient thought. When the man they thought was the Messiah died, the early disciples were confused. The concept of a dying Messiah was not part of their theology. As they thought about the death and searched the Hebrew Bible to try to make sense of it, they began to understand his death in terms of a sacrifice. They utilized the concepts associated with sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible as well as the ideas that were prevalent in Semitic culture. Later Paul expanded on these to include Hellenistic concepts of sacrifice to deities.

As Ben Witherington says: Most religions in the Greco-Roman world, like most religions in the Ancient Near East had three things in common---- temples, priests, and sacrifices. The death of Jesus was interpreted by the early Christians in terms of many of the common concepts associated with the understanding of sacrifice in the ancient world (see this prior post).

I have been doing some reading on the subject of sacrifices in ancient religions and it has been very enlightening. One of the books that I have found especially helpful was written by W. Robertson Smith (1846-1894). He has some excellent insights into the nature of religious sacrifice in his book, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (1889).

One of the insights is that in ancient times, a public execution was often seen as propitiatory and in some sense, substitutionary. For example, the case of Achan in Joshua 7. He and his family were publicly executed and then in 7:26 it says: "the Lord turned from his fierce anger". God was angry with the whole nation and the nation suffered a defeat at Ai because of Achan's sin. When Achan was executed, God's wrath was propitiated and the nation was no longer under his wrath.

Smith explains the concept:
Hence, when a tribesman is executed for an impious offence, he dies on behalf of the community, to restore normal relations between them and their god; so that the analogy with sacrifice is very close in purpose as well as in form. And so the cases in which the anger of the god can be traced to the crime of a particular individual, and atoned for by his death, are very naturally seized upon to explain the cases in which the sin of the community cannot be thus individualised, but where, nevertheless, according to ancient custom, reconciliation is sought through the sacrifice of a theanthropic victim. The old explanation, that the life of the sacrosanct animal is used to retie the life-bond between the god and his worshippers, fell out of date when the kinship of races of men with animal kinds was forgotten. A new explanation had to be sought; and none lay nearer than that the sin of the community was concentrated on the victim, and that its death was accepted as a sacrifice to divine justice. This explanation was natural, and appears to have been widely adopted, though it hardly became a formal dogma, for ancient religion had no official dogmas, but contented itself with continuing to practise antique rites, and letting everyone interpret them as he would (pp. 421-22).

It seems that a sacrifice and an execution were not totally dissimilar in the mind of the ancient Semite. Both served to propitiate the anger of the god(s).

Another insight from Smith is that the sacrifices were seen as purging away guilt. He writes:

Another interpretation of piacular sacrifice, which has great prominence in antiquity, is that it purges away guilt. The cleansing effect of piacula is mainly associated with the application to the persons of the worshippers of sacrificial blood or ashes, or of holy water and other things of sacred virtue, including holy herbs and even the fragrant smoke of incense.. . Purifications, therefore, are performed by the use of any of the physical means that re-establish normal relations with the deity and the congregation of his worshippers—in short, by contact with something that contains and can impart a divine virtue. For ordinary purposes the use of living water may suffice, for, as we know, there is a sacred principle in such water. But the most powerful cleansing media are necessarily derived from the body and blood of sacrosanct victims, and the forms of purification embrace such rites as the sprinkling of sacrificial blood or ashes on the person, anointing with holy unguents, or fumigation with the smoke of incense, which from early times was a favourite accessory to sacrifices(p. 426).

It is interesting that water, especially living or running water was seen as able to cleanse (compare the Christian concept of baptism) but a better agent to cleanse away sin was the blood of the victim (compare 1 John 1:7).

Another lesser known practice was for the skin of the victim to be removed and placed over the offerer. This is seen in Genesis 3:21 when God clothes Adam and Eve with coats of skin, it is seen as well as in many other primitive societies. Smith explains:

But when the fresh skin of the victim is applied to the worshipper in the sacrifice, the idea is rather an imparting to him of the sacred virtue of its life. Thus in piacular and cathartic rites the skin of the sacrifice is used in a way quite similar to the use of the blood, but dramatically more expressive of the identification of the worshipper's life with that of the victim. In Greek piacula the man on whose behalf the sacrifice was performed simply put his foot on the skin; at Hierapolis the pilgrim put the head and feet over his own head while he knelt on the skin; in certain late Syrian rites a boy is initiated by a sacrifice in which his feet are clothed in slippers made of the skin of the sacrifice. These rites do not appear to have suggested any idea, as to the meaning of piacular sacrifice, different from those that have already come before us; but as the skin of a sacrifice is the oldest form of a sacred garment, appropriate to the performance of holy functions, the figure of a "robe of righteousness," which is found both in the Old Testament and in the New, and still supplies one of the commonest theological metaphors, may be ultimately traced back to this source (pp. 438-39).

Smith concludes his book with the following:

On the whole it is apparent, from the somewhat tedious discussion which I have now brought to a close, that the various aspects in which atoning rites presented themselves to ancient worshippers have supplied a variety of religious images which passed into Christianity [emphasis mine], and still have currency. Redemption, substitution, purification, atoning blood, the garment of righteousness, are all terms which in some sense go back to antique ritual. But in ancient religion all these terms are very vaguely defined; they indicate impressions produced on the mind of the worshipper by features of the ritual, rather than formulated ethico-dogmatical ideas; and the attempt to find in them anything as precise and definite as the notions attached to the same words by Christian theologians is altogether illegitimate. The one point that comes out clear and strong is that the fundamental idea of ancient sacrifice is sacramental communion, and that all atoning rites are ultimately to be regarded as owing their efficacy to a communication of divine life to the worshippers, and to the establishment or confirmation of a living bond between them and their god. In primitive ritual this conception is grasped in a merely physical and mechanical shape, as indeed, in primitive life, all spiritual and ethical ideas are still wrapped up in the husk of a material embodiment. To free the spiritual truth from the husk was the great task that lay before the ancient religions, if they were to maintain the right to continue to rule the minds of men. That some progress in this direction was made, especially in Israel, appears from our examination. But on the whole it is manifest that none of the ritual systems of antiquity was able by mere natural development to shake itself free from the congenital defect inherent in every attempt to embody spiritual truth in material forms. A ritual system must always remain materialistic, even if its materialism is disguised under the cloak of mysticism (pp. 439-40).

14 comments:

  1. Wonderful post, as always.

    The concept of `cleansing' reminds me yet again of the Sapolsky talk on the relationship between certain common features of religion and certain mental disorders in explaining the evolution of religiosity. In this case, the obsession with ritualistic cleansing in OCD as the more severe end of a spectrum of a ritualistic cleansing desired by the population. Ritual prayer as cleansing plays a similar role. The notion of `sin' receives the same treatment as dirtiness throughout scripture, something which must be washed away.

    Christianity makes this analogy explicit, but as Smith notes, it is common to many religions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems to me that maybe both pre- and post-Christ theories of the Messiah are off the mark. Before Jesus' death, Jews thought that the Messiah would be the one to expel the Romans and establish a new Israelite kingdom in Palestine. Then when He died, they struggled to find meaning through analogy with the Semitic/Canaanite sacrifice rituals they were familiar with.

    Jesus tried getting people to understand it was a spiritual kingdom he was building, but they didn't get it. Maybe his death was just to show that he was human like us, and that he wasn't going to be the violent warrior-king some of his followers wanted him to be. The longer he had lived, the more his followers would have expected some kind of revolution from him.

    The sign nailed to the cross underscored the point nicely.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Ken,

    This is a very poor post. The historical conception is so far off reliable historicity it hardly should to be mentioned.

    Firstly the early disciples were not confused by the death of Jesus rather his resurrection.

    As opponents to Christianity attest...

    ‘after His resurrection from the dead, and to lament before God as did the Ninevites that your nation and city might not be seized and destroyed, as it has been; yet you not only refused to repent after you learned that He arose from the dead, but, as I stated, you chose certain men and commissioned them to travel throughout the whole civilized world and announce: 'A godless and lawless sect has been started by an impostor, a certain Jesus of Galilee, whom we nailed to the cross, but whose body, after it was taken from the cross, was stolen at night from the tomb by His disciples, who now try to deceive men by affirming that He has arisen from the dead and has ascended into Heaven.' And you accuse Him of having taught those irreverent, riotous, and wicked things, of which you everywhere accuse all those who look up to and acknowledge Him as their Christ, their Teacher, and the Son of God.

    From Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho

    and...

    This is He,' I will say, 'the son of the carpenter and the harlot, the sabbath-breaker, the Samaritan who had a devil. This is He whom you purchased from Judas, this is He who was struck with reed and fist, defiled with spittle, given gall and vinegar to drink. This is He whom the disciples secretly stole away to spread the story of His resurrection, or whom the gardener removed lest his lettuces be trampled by the throng of curious idlers.'

    From...Tertullian, On Spectacles,


    Both of these quotes show that the bible was not considered and furthermore the resurrection was the evidence that convinced the Christians that Jesus was Christ not the death of Christ. Please be more attuned to actual history.

    Phil.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Phil,

    I'm not sure why you (apparently) consider your comment to demonstrate that Ken's history was off. Which of the following do you contest:

    1. Many Jewish Christians/Jews had expected a physical liberation from the Romans.
    2. Given (1), it is reasonable to believe that Christians, particularly Jewish Christians (but gentiles as well for different reasons) would have been confused by the death of Jesus.
    3. Judaism contained as features the notions of sacrifice, related propitiation, and ritual cleansing through water and blood.
    4. It is plausible that the combination of (2) and (3) yielded the early forms of atonement theory.

    As put here by Ken, summarizing Smith: "It seems that a sacrifice and an execution were not totally dissimilar in the mind of the ancient Semite. Both served to propitiate the anger of the god(s).

    Another insight from Smith is that the sacrifices were seen as purging away guilt."

    And here is (4) in Smith's words, partially emphasized by Ken: "On the whole it is apparent, from the somewhat tedious discussion which I have now brought to a close, that the various aspects in which atoning rites presented themselves to ancient worshippers have supplied a variety of religious images which passed into Christianity [emphasis [Ken's]], and still have currency."

    Given that 1-4 appear to be the key points of Ken's discussion, I really do not see the relevance -- much less a decisive counterexample -- in telling us what Justin Martyr said when chastising an unconvinced Trypho for the `stolen body' theory of the resurrection. If anything, this shows that the resurrection (even just the concept) might have also confused early Christians and skeptics, but it does not undermine Ken's history.

    "Both of these quotes show that the bible was not considered and furthermore the resurrection was the evidence that convinced the Christians that Jesus was Christ not the death of Christ. Please be more attuned to actual history."

    Given the time of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, they were not observers of the resurrection. Therefore they were not convinced by the resurrection. Rather, they were convinced by the willingness of Christians to die for their beliefs, committing the common fallacy of "strong conviction" implies "justified belief", which is not particularly remarkable. (For a counterexample to `conviction implies justified belief', I presume that you do not believe that Mormonism is vindicated by the persecuted Mormons who attested to the miraculous claims of Joseph Smith. Nor would I suppose that you maintain that hundreds of those people who claimed to have killed the Lindbergh baby, risking prison in doing so, were justified in their belief.)

    Still, even if we grant your passages as being what you intended, it would not undermine the historicity of Ken's post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. HI Zachary,

    I contest this statement,

    I have argued that the meaning attached to the death of Jesus by the earliest Christians bore similarities to the concepts of sacrifice, and even human sacrifice, that were prevalent in ancient thought. When the man they thought was the Messiah died, the early disciples were confused. The concept of a dying Messiah was not part of their theology. As they thought about the death and searched the Hebrew Bible to try to make sense of it, they began to understand his death in terms of a sacrifice.

    Which as my comment have shown prove the resurrection was the issue of confusion, not the death.

    Phil.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Agree with the rev.

    This is a poor post.

    Who said the disciples confused by Jesus' death? This is bizarre. Jesus predicted his death, they were expecting it. Ken you keep talking about them being confused that their messiah-supposedly invincible- died (as tho all believed like the Jews..). The Jews believe that Messiah will not die. This is a mess.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Who said the disciples confused by Jesus' death? This is bizarre. Jesus predicted his death, they were expecting it.

    The gospels portray the disciples as being a little confused.

    Luke
    24:9 And [the women] returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
    24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
    24:11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Walter,
    This is with reference with the resurrection.

    You have to remember that this was also before they witnessed the event. An experience that many folks like Ken claim to be a hallucination.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think you guys need to check out the translation of the Codex Sinaiticus- the oldest known version of the New Testamnet. Mark was the only one to mention the resurrection, and that was thought to have been written about 400 AD- around the time that Constantine was playing around with and altering the Bible to suit his needs - to impress his people and gain political power.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Phil and John,

    Yes the Gospels say that Jesus predicted his death and his resurrecton. I believe these statements were later additions to the tradition (remember the Gospels were not written for decades after the events they record). The simple fact is that Jews (which is what the disciples were) did not expect the Messiah to die. As N. T. Wright says the death of one who claimed to the be the Messiah would be considered proof-positive that he was not the Messiah in the minds of first century Jews.

    So, yes they were confused and they were in hiding, thinking they would be next to be executed. If they were so full of faith as you suppose they should have been standing outside the tomb waiting for Jesus to come out.

    After some people reported seeing Jesus alive and the rumour took hold in the Christian community, then an explanation for why he died had to be brought forth. This is where they used the concepts of sacrifice that were already prevalent in their culture to explain the significance of his death.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ken,

    First, with regards to the additions, I believe the OT has prophecies as well.

    Also, absolutely the disciples were Jews. But that is what makes the christian story that much more remarkable.

    ReplyDelete
  12. First, with regards to the additions, I believe the OT has prophecies as well.

    What, you mean like the one in Daniel that "predicted" Alexander the Great but was actually most likely written as an allegory for Antiochus IV Epiphanes some time around the Maccabean Revolt? Because if you want to read about that one it's in the middle of an extremely long post I wrote yesterday.

    Or are you talking about the vast collection of things that are said to be prophecies of Jesus by Christian apologists but are actually single lines or verses taken completely out of context that only work as prophecies of you eisegete the Jesus story in to the text in the first place?

    Also, absolutely the disciples were Jews. But that is what makes the christian story that much more remarkable.

    Explain. Please. These are two completely disconnected statements that are designed to make us say, "Oh, you're absolutely right. It is remarkable." But the one thought does not follow from the other at all. If they were Jews and they were actually hanging out with an actually Messiah who actually died and rose again it would not be remarkable that they would believe, because they would have seen the impossible and it wouldn't matter if they were Jews, Greeks, Romans, or Persians.

    In fact, the only way that statement works is if it's from the construct that the disciples made the whole thing up. Because it would have been remarkable for a collection of Jews who thought that the Messiah would arrive and cast off the Roman oppression turn around and make up a story about a Messiah who died, arose, and promised an eternal kingdom after death.

    Thereby, the only way that the presence of Jews in the Jesus story is actually remarkable is if the story is a fake story. And the phrase that's meant to convince us becomes, effectively, meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A sacrifice is something offered (back) to the gods, as a sign or symbol of thankfulness for all that they have given to you. Shepherds sacrificed the first or the best offsprings of their flocks; land-toilers the best firts-fruits of their fields; rich men their gold and silver or money; warriors the weapons and goods they've plundered from their defeated adversaries; etc. -- in the Bible we even have parents offering their offspring (expecially when it was given to them as an answer to prayers) to God's service, instead of keeping them for themselves, to help them in their old age; etc.

    What ANY of this has to do with "kill my sacrifice (gold? silver? flour? first-fruits? money? tithes?) instead of me" is beyond me, but feel free to believe (or disbelieve) whatever you want...

    ReplyDelete