The Cross

If you're a modern Christian, Jew, Muslim or even an atheist the Cross is so prevalent in contemporary culture that it is difficult to imagine looking at it a new set of eyes.

Yet that's the problem.

Christians have been baptized into 'loving' the object that they can't see it for what it is - an instrument of torturous death. Jews have such an ingrained hatred of the Cross (I sometimes wonder if the characteristic trait of vampires was developed out of anti-Semitic traditions) that they can't even consider what it must have meant to their ancestors in the first century period.

But it is precisely these things which are essential for us to finally put the pieces together regarding Christian origins.

The central question is - why venerate the ancient equivalent of the electric chair? Yes of course the unthinking answer from believers is that 'Jesus appeared crucified' on one of these things. Yet this still doesn't answer the original question.

As Celsus of Rome noted a century after the original crucifixion - if Jesus had been thrown in a pit would Christians venerate a 'pit of resurrection'? In other words, did it just come down to the kind of death that Jesus endured or was there something more to the tradition?

Mystics will certainly point to the cross appearing in the shape resembling the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Yet this again cannot be it. There is something so downright bizarre about the early Christian veneration of the 'ancient equivalent of the electric chair' that we have to imagine that it had also had something to do with the contemporary age in which the gospel was written by Mark rather than merely being determined by the circumstances of Jesus death.

What I mean of course is that the Cross was venerated as the new testimony of God because (a) the temple had already been or was about to be destroyed (as per Daniel 9:24 - 27) and (b) God was about to manifest his presence on the earth again in the form he had taken during the Passion (i.e. the time when the Jews had chosen to condemn Jesus on one of these things and to liberate 'little Mark' as their Christ (see Pilate's question).

I know this is a hard concept for many believers and non-believers to get their head around but let's begin to look at the Cross as what it was - i.e. an ancient equivalent of the electric chair - and then take into account how Jews traditionally viewed Moses' original testimony (i.e. that it was a blessing and a curse) and then reinterpret the first hymn of the Samaritan Mark the son of Titus in light of the Palestinian environment that the gospel of Mark was written.

The first step is to remember (how can we forget) that ancient Christians worship the Cross. Second that Jews now loathe the Cross because it was a symbol that they were forced to embrace in order to become readmitted into society at large (and for how long? This is the central question - i.e. did it go back to the time of Agrippa's rule over Palestine). The third step is to remind ourselves of the contemporary Palestinian environment in which Mark wrote his gospel and - we must think - Jews were being encouraged or forced to view the Cross as having mystical significance during the Jewish War (read the attached references of crosses in the writings of Josephus assembled over at James Tabor's site). And then finally incorporate the Samaritan understanding of a parallel warning/blessing associated with crucified victims at the time of Mark where countless numbers of crucified victims were being openly displayed in Palestinian AND this same Mark was trying to use their presence as a symbol of resurrection (see Boid's notes here).

Again I want to emphasize that this rediscovery of the Samaritan hymn of Mark (it was never translated into English). This was THE MOST IMPORTANT HYMN in the Samaritan liturgy. It appeared first in the section of hymns attributed to Mark and was one which was ALWAYS sung on Sabbaths and Festivals as a way of reminding the people of Mark's lesson (i.e. a non-visual parallel of the display of crosses in the churches associated with Mark's gospel among the proselytes).

Is there a connection between the 'St. Mark' of the Christians, Marcus Agrippa of the Jews and Mark the son of Titus among the Samaritans. I certainly think so but this cannot be proved as of yet (Boid's arguments for considering the Samaritan Mark as living in this period can be found by entering the name 'Marqe' in the search engine for the blog above). For the moment we just have to contemplate HOW this might have all fit together by understanding separate parts of the formula I propose. The rest will fall into place, I believe over time.