The blood curse in Matthew indicates Jesus' Jewish opponents didn't get the Ezekiel memo, either

 

Nothing could be more Jewish than the blood curse, except maybe Judaism arguing with itself about it.

When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

-- Matthew 27:24f.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 

-- Ezekiel 18:20

Jesus certainly didn't get the memo:

... the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah ... shall be required of this generation.

-- Luke 11:51

The Torah was divided on the subject:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. 

-- Deuteronomy 24:16

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

-- Deuteronomy 5:9

Primitive religions have routinely thought sacrificed humans paid a debt demanded by the gods, Christianity included (but Rod Dreher doesn't think so)

 

How Science Is Helping Us Understand Human Sacrifice

Ancient DNA reveals mysteries surrounding once-widespread practice

By Aylin Woodward

July 3, 2024

Death by strangulation, decapitation, exsanguination. Buried alive, burned on pyres, crushed by stones, thrown off cliffs. 

Homo sapiens in nearly every part of the world has practiced human sacrifice at some point over at least five millennia, often killing females in fertility rites or for burial alongside powerful males.  

But new research enabled by DNA analysis and other scientific advances has challenged assumptions about the identity of sacrificial victims, at least among the Maya of Central America. 

Between 900 and 1,400 years ago, the Maya regularly sacrificed boys—particularly twins or close male relatives—according to a study published in June in the journal Nature. 

The findings are based on the ancient DNA of 64 children who had been deposited in an underground cistern at the site of Chichén Itzá, a city built on Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula.

For the ancient Maya, being sacrificed was considered a privilege, so these boys—most of whom were between the ages of 3 and 6—were likely given up willingly by their families, according to Rodrigo Barquera, an immunogeneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany and co-author of the recent study. 

A possible explanation for the sacrifices lies in Maya lore. According to the culture’s written traditions, “Hero Twins”—both male—traveled to the underworld to avenge their father, a twin himself, who was killed by the lords of the underworld. Sacrifices of two male children were likely part of a ritual that helped the Maya honor this part of their mythology and belief system. 

At the distance of millennia, these and other ritual killings appear barbaric. But to the cultures that carried them out, human sacrifices served myriad purposes, including fulfilling a universal desire to manage the uncontrollable world in which they lived.

“We think of this as such a bizarre practice, something very unusual and unexplainable, but three-quarters of societies did it,” according to Peter Turchin, an evolutionary scientist at the Complexity Science Hub, a Vienna-based research organization, who wasn’t involved in the research.

For the most part, ritual killings fell into one of two categories. 

The first was what anthropologists called a retainer sacrifice, when servants or consorts, for example, were killed to accompany someone who had died—usually a member of the elite—into the great beyond.

It was particularly prevalent among members of the African Kingdom of Dahomey, which persisted until roughly the beginning of the 20th century; during the Shang Dynasty of China some three millennia ago; and in Egypt between about 3100 and 2900 B.C. King Djer, a pharaoh who ruled during ancient Egypt’s first dynasty, had more than 500 retainer sacrifices surrounding his tomb in Abydos.

The other form was the sacrifice of captives or community members to placate, please or ask favors of gods and ancestors. “You’re supplying the divine world with something valuable in order to get something in return,” said Glenn Schwartz, a professor of archaeology at Johns Hopkins University. “It’s often discussed in the literature as a gift-giving enterprise.”

The Aztec, who mostly postdated the Maya and were famous for cutting out the hearts of prisoners atop pyramids as an offering to their gods, didn’t even have a word for human sacrifice.

“The word they always used for these ceremonies was debt payment,” said Davíd Carrasco, a historian of religions at Harvard University.

Children were believed to be among the best emissaries to the gods because in many cultures they were considered purer than adults, and thus better able to communicate with the spirit world.

The ancient Carthaginians sacrificed their infants and buried the ashes in urns at special seaside burial grounds, perhaps to engender safe voyages across the Mediterranean. 

Centuries ago, the Inca drugged and sacrificed their children in a ritual known as capacocha to appease the gods during times of crisis, such as a drought or disease, according to Angelique Corthals, a forensic anthropologist at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

“The Inca were trying to control that event by offering the most precious thing that they had,” she said. Some of these children were brought high atop a dormant volcano in the Andes, where their bodies ended up mummified and exceptionally preserved because of the cold atop the peak.

In one of the largest known examples of child sacrifice, the Chimú killed more than 100 boys and girls in prehispanic Peru some 500 years ago. Hundreds of baby llamas were killed too.

Experts have interpreted the Chimú sacrifice as “a very desperate act to communicate with the gods during a period of extreme climate change,” said Brenna Hassett, a biological anthropologist and lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire in the U.K. It followed a time of heavy rainfall and flooding from an El Niño event, concurrent with an invasion threat from the nearby Inca.

But inferring motives, or even distinguishing ritual killings from executions with nothing more than visual examinations of bones or burials is challenging. 

The contents of a tomb can offer hints—such as the presence of objects for use in the afterlife called grave goods or the positioning of bodies in relation to one another—but now a new wave of studies is using genetic analysis to shed light on archaeological mysteries. 

DNA analysis and other tools enable anthropologists to discern where a person was from, the quality of their diet and health and their sex—something previously impossible for children and a key to the discovery of the Maya boys. 

“While you can determine sex from adult bones, the result of hormone changes during puberty, these changes are lacking in children,” said Barquera’s co-author, Christina Warinner, a biomolecular archaeologist at Harvard. 

Barquera and his group analyzed the petrous bone—a dense part of the skull’s temporal bone that preserves DNA well—from 64 children found in the Maya cistern. 

In addition to learning that the children were male, they found identical genomes in the different bones, revealing the pairs of identical twins. The DNA also revealed genetic continuity between these boys and the modern-day Maya living in the area today, underscoring that those being sacrificed had been chosen from within the local community near Chichén Itzá, rather than being outsiders. The findings run counter to historical narratives passed down by Spanish officials and priests that Mesoamerican cultures tended to sacrifice enslaved captives.

Radiocarbon dating of the bones showed the boys weren’t all killed at once, hinting, Warinner said, that the sacrifices might have been related to a cyclic ritual ceremony. Isotopic analysis showed that most of the boys shared the same diet, suggesting they were raised together and deliberately prepared for sacrifice, Barquera added.

“It’s such an exciting time to be doing archaeology,” said Nawa Sugiyama, an anthropologist from the University of California, Riverside, who wasn’t involved in the Maya work. “The level of detail with which we’re able to reconstruct these rituals has really opened up our ability to be there and relate to these families and communities.”

Write to Aylin Woodward at aylin.woodward@wsj.com 

 

Primitive Christianity reflects, rather than repudiates, this ancient human barbarism by insisting on the salvific meaning of the man Jesus' death as a pure sacrifice which paid a debt owed to the one God.

That is another milestone in the long trend of regressive thinking in Judaism (as was apocalyptic in particular, which the historical Jesus eschewed, and eschatology in general, which he did not; the establishment of human kingship over Israel; the building of a box for God called the temple; et cetera), which putatively from the time of Moses had repudiated human sacrifice as an abomination (Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:9ff.), or even earlier as foreshadowed in the halted sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22), aka the temptation of Abraham.

But in the New Testament the Jewish God himself, completely out of character, is actively nailing his own son to the cross as a sacrifice for sins.

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 

-- Hebrews 10:10 

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 

-- Galatians 5:3

And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.  

-- Colossians 2:13f.

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 

-- II Corinthians 5:21 

Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood.

-- Romans 3:24f.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:  

-- I Peter 1:18f.

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 

-- Matthew 27:46

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 

-- Mark 15:34

  

The Synoptic accounts put Mary at the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathaea, but John makes it seem like she didn't get the memo about the spices

And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre. -- Matthew 27:61 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. -- Matthew 28:1 (Matthew says nothing about the spices one way or the other)

And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid. -- Mark 15:47 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. -- Mark 16:1

And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. -- Luke 23:55f. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.  -- Luke 24:1

Then took they [Joseph and Nicodemus] the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. -- John 19:40 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.  -- John 20:1 (John has Mary present at least at the cross)

So either Mary came on the first day of the week just to see (Matthew 28:1 and John 20:1), in which case John's account invalidates Mark and Luke, or she came to anoint the body (Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:1), invalidating John.

The tradition is unsettled on this basic point to say the very least, without mentioning other uncertain details.

Joseph of Arimathaea improbably carried away Jesus' body and rolled his great tombstone all by himself

And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. -- Mark 15:46 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. -- Mark 16:3f.

And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. -- Matthew 27:59f. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. -- Matthew 28:2

And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. -- Luke 24:2

John solves the improbability by introducing a helper for Joseph:

And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand. -- John 19:38ff. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. -- John 20:1

But it never occurred to John how improbable it is to have Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead yet still need helpers first to remove Lazarus' tombstone:

Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. ... Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. ...  -- John 11:38f., 41.

The absence of "church", "saints" and "early catholicism"

You will search in vain for church and saints [ἐκκλησία and ἁγίων] in the gospels, save for Matthew 16:18, Matthew 18:17 and Matthew 27:52 (and what "saints" meant in the latter isn't exactly the same idea which we find after the gospels, but let's not open that can of worms right now).

The gospels dubiously tell us Jesus predicted his future death and resurrection on the third day, but the future church and its many members? not so much, which only underscores the dubiosity of the third-day rising predictions. (For fun, I resurrect the word "dubiosity", which had fallen into disuse already by the time of Samuel Johnson).

You would think that a guy who knew he was going to rise from the dead and found a church would have said much more about it. After all, predicting the future church is small potatoes compared with predicting your own crucifixion and resurrection on the third day. Jesus' imagination was clearly focused on something less pedestrian than the now interminable church age and the salvation of its billions of goyim.

And you would also think the church would have made him talk much more about it.

Talk of the "church" only in a little corner of Matthew is probably "early catholicism" at work, or at least something like it. It looks suspiciously similar to the insertion of the third-day-rising predictions themselves. It too is propaganda, but on a much smaller scale.

This tells us something very important.

The absence of "church" from the gospel tradition, even from John, testifies to, if not the sway of a smoldering conception of the eschatological future imagined by Jesus, at least to the enduring cognitive dissonance the memory of that still produced. The problem still being wrestled with in the gospels is the death of Jesus and the failure of the end of the world to materialize, not something else. This dissonance probably had everything to do with the production of the written gospels in the first place. The emphasis on, and the similarity of, the passion narratives in the gospels both make that plain.

The absence of "church" as a category, however, points to an earlier stage in this process of self-reflection than we find in the epistles. We are not yet at the later self-referential stage of the church found in Paul and elsewhere in the New Testament after the gospels where "church" and "saints" are most definitely used as routine categories. This means the material in the gospels, if not the gospels themselves, dates much earlier than is generally appreciated. The absence of "church" in the gospels is thus similar in significance for their dating to the gospels' failure to mention the destruction of the Jewish temple. Together they point to a date for the gospels before 70, perhaps well before.

It is difficult to believe that when the rest of the New Testament after the Fourth Gospel is loaded with uses of "church" and "saints" that the gospels could possibly come from that era.

The hypothesis of an intrusion of "early catholicism" has not been without its problems, however, for example for the composition of Luke-Acts. It is almost inconceivable that the repeated use of "church" in Acts, for example, comes from the very same hand as gave us the Gospel of Luke, or at least that Acts comes from the same time period of composition as the gospel, a point which perhaps speaks against the two-volume history hypothesis of Luke-Acts. But it is more inconceivable that on the original conception in New Testament scholarship of "early catholicism" at work all over the place in Luke's Gospel that it could be an exponent of that without once mentioning the church. To make matters worse for the theory as originally conceived, the third gospel's unique witness to some of Jesus' most pointed eschatological assertions hardly fits the relatively more mundane future ecclesiastical setting from which it is supposed to have sprung.

What this means is that as a phenomenon "early catholicism" remains a useful hypothetical category whose content has to be rethought and scaled back. The gospels' solution to the eschatological dilemma which occasioned their composition in the first place supplies that content. Early catholicism is thus at the same time a lot earlier than originally conceived and dedicated to a different object.

It seems best to view the gospels as earlier than 70, at least in spirit, and as attempts to rewrite the narrative of the failed eschatological message of Jesus.

What if the Jesus Movement wasn't originally a resurrection cult at all?

For a resurrection cult which came to believe in Jesus' resurrection, Jesus' closest followers seem like the biggest bunch of dimwits about it despite all of Jesus' "predictions" that he would rise on the third day.

One begins in Matthew 12:40 with the prediction that the Son of Man would be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth".

Then follow all the rising-on-the-third-day predictions in Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19 and 26:32.

Mark has these in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and 14:28.

Luke in 9:22, 44, 18:33, and ex post facto 24:6ff., 21, 26, 46.

Yet there is unaccountable bewilderment on the part of the disciples about Jesus' prediction: "what the rising from the dead should mean" (Mark 9:10).

There is even fear to inquire: "But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him" (Mark 9:32).

You have to wonder about such dumbfoundedness given the ubiquity of the topic in the gospels otherwise.

In Matthew 10:8 Jesus sent out these same disciples to "raise the dead"! Well, did they?

Resurrections are proof of Jesus' ministry (Matthew 11:5, Luke 7:14, 22 and 8:54).

And speculation existed that Jesus himself was John the Baptist risen from the dead (Matthew 14:2), or one of the prophets (Luke 9:8, 19). Like they hadn't heard that.

You also have to wonder about other perplexing behavior.

Why would the women followers of Jesus bother to prepare spices for the burial of his body and bring them on the third day if he actually predicted that he would die and rise, and they believed this? (Mark 16:1, Luke 23: 56, Luke 24:1)

Even the authorities knew of this prediction, we are led to understand, and took measures to secure against it. (Matthew 27:63f. "that deceiver said 'After three days I will rise again'") The unbelievers knew, but Jesus' own followers did not? (John 20:9 "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead")

None of this is satisfactory.

The predictions of Jesus' death and rising on the third day all look to be revisionist history, imported into the narrative from the future when reflection had settled on a resurrection narrative.

That narrative was largely Pauline. It made resurrection the centerpiece of the religion, replacing Jesus' original message of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. As such the narrative was a Christian form of Pharisaism, in which Paul's genius as a theologian invented the new availability of individual holiness apart from the temple cult, secured through the once for all sacrifice of God's own son.

Jesus meanwhile had intended none of this, not to die for the sins of Israel let alone the whole world. If he intended the replacement of the temple cult, it was with individual repentance and mercy, prayer, and delight in the law of the Lord, bringing an end to the shedding of blood in preparation for the descent of the heavenly temple when God himself would establish justice and peace once and for all, and remove everything from Israel which offended. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done . . .."

The historical kernel on which was built a religion wholly different from this was simply Jesus' own conviction that as a prophet he would likely be killed.

Out of the molehill of this sober expectation and its unfortunate realization was made the historical accident, the mountain we call Christianity.

Why did Jesus appear to go quietly to his death?

 

Jesus is reported to have said little at the trials which shortly preceded his execution.

This is often understood to mean that Jesus previously had resigned himself to the idea that it was God's will that he be crucified, but only after wrestling with God in prayer in the garden before his arrest, so that he did nothing to stand in the way of the inevitable once events had gotten underway in earnest. This "Stoical" demeanor later became an important part of early Christian preaching about Jesus' crucifixion, for example as reported in Acts, and became an important model for taking persecution with equanimity:

The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth.

 

-- Acts 8:32

This fact of Jesus' silence at his trials is well known from the Synoptics:

And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace.

 

-- Matthew 26:62f.

And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing.

 

-- Mark 14:60f.

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.

 

-- Matthew 27:11ff.

And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it. And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.

 

-- Mark 15:2ff.

And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

 

-- Luke 23:8f.

But you would be hard pressed to find this silence in the Fourth Gospel.

In John, by contrast, Jesus is not at all silent but has quite a lot to say at his trial, as a reading of John 18 amply testifies. And there is no evidence of any personal struggle in prayer, either, in the Garden of Gethsemane preceding his arrest, but rather a bold, self-assured confrontation with his betrayer. The only evidence of silence from the whole episode is more of Jesus pausing for effect than refusing or being unable to speak:

And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

 

-- John 19:9

But that too passes as Jesus shortly does give reply.

In comparison to the Synoptics John's account is almost surreal, as if there is lurking there a Jesus who could actually be thinking he's not going to die and that God is still going to intervene at the very last second. In the end all the human drama is wrung out of John's wooden account in the service of a comprehensive theology about a descending and ascending incarnate Logos. 

But if it may be doubted that John is writing history, reasons remain to doubt the Stoical model susceptible from the Synoptic accounts as well.

For one thing, from the accounts of the struggle in prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane one cannot conclude there was any succor such that Jesus was now prepared to go quietly to his fate. The closest thing we get to that is in Luke 22:43, where we are told an angel appeared from heaven to strengthen Jesus. (Who was awake to see this?) But immediately after that Jesus is back on his knees praying again, in worse shape than before, sweating blood.

For another, Matthew 26 and Mark 14 omit the appearance of any angel, but the ongoing anxiety despite prayer is palpable in both accounts in that Jesus repeats his prayer three times asking that "this cup pass". While Luke has Jesus engaged in supplication only twice, all three include some form of the petition "not my will but thine be done", as if Jesus is still dwelling on what he wants to be the reality, but still is not.

Furthermore, the psychological terminology used in these accounts in the Garden is striking but is rarely allowed to paint a picture of the depressed state of mind into which Jesus is descending.

And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful (λυπεῖσθαι) and very heavy (ἀδημονεῖν).

 

-- Matthew 26:37

The terms signify grief leading to tears, and a feeling of being lost and totally out of place (the KJV translation shown leaves quite a lot to be desired).

Mark says he was struck with terror, and felt lost:

And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed (ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι), and to be very heavy (ἀδημονεῖν).

 

-- Mark 14:33

As if those terms weren't enough, both Matthew and Mark pile up worse ones in the immediately following verses. Jesus is "beyond sorrowful", so sad he could die.

Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful (Περίλυπός), even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

 

-- Matthew 26:38

And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful (Περίλυπός) unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. 

 

-- Mark 14:34

And Luke piles on that he was in utter agony, a terrible struggle with himself.

And being in an agony (ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ) he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

 

-- Luke 22:44

What we have here is a man falling into a major depression, full of fears, feeling as if lost in unfamiliar country, isolated and alone, suddenly driven to repetitious behavior, perhaps seeing things, and speaking of dying.

It's a short step to catatonic stupor, in which you say nothing and become so rigid you just stand there and take it.

When Jesus himself wasn't just poor, but poor in spirit

Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. -- Matthew 26:38

And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. -- Mark 14:34

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? ... Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. -- Matthew 27:46,50

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? ... And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. ... And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. -- Mark 15:34, 37, 39

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. -- Luke 23:46

When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, And said, Where have ye laid him? They said unto him, Lord, come and see. Jesus wept. ... Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. ... -- John 11:33ff., 38

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. ... Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. -- John 12:27, 44

When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. -- John 13:21

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! -- Luke 13:34

And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, -- Luke 19:41

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; -- Hebrews 5:7f.

Luke's Jesus predicts it, but Luke never says that Pontius Pilate scourged Jesus or that Jesus was scourged

And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.

-- Luke 18:33

Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

-- Matthew 27:26

And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

-- Mark 15:15

Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.

-- John 19:1

Both Thieves Revile Jesus In Matthew And Mark, But Not So In Luke

Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads ... Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said ... The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

-- Matthew 27:38, 39, 41, 44 

Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

-- Mark 15:32

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

-- Luke 23:39ff.

Libertarian John Tamny says humans are capital

 

 

 

 Here, just in time for Holy Week.

Yeah. The life of Jesus was worth just 30 pieces of silver. Maybe 30 of these Tyrian tetradrachms, about 4 months' skilled wages.

Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, "What will you give me if I deliver him to you?" And they paid him thirty pieces of silver. ... When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."

-- Matthew 26: 14f., Matthew 27:3ff.

More Evidence of Subordinationism in the "My God" Sayings

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mt.27:46)

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mk.15:34)

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God. (Jn.20:17)

These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name.(Rev.3:7-12)