The folly of the cross or the crucifixion of reason?

Regulus returning to Carthage to be crucified

I liked Martin Hengel's books "The `Hellenization' of Judea" and "The Son of God". While I disagree with Hengel (a Christian theologian) on a number of points, I found the books interesting and stimulating. Unfortunately, this is not the case with "Crucifixion", which feels too narrowly apologetic.

Hengel's case is the usual one we have come to expect from a certain kind of theologians: who would worship a crucified god? Who would worship a god from Galilee? Since the early Christians did, that proves something supernatural was involved...

I believe Richard Carrier has effectively disposed of these ideas in his book "Not the impossible faith". Hengel quickly gets into trouble when attempting to prove that both Jews and pagans considered crucifixion so abominable that it couldn't have happened to a nice guy (or god). Thus, Hengel admits that the Roman hero Marcus Atilius Regulus was sometimes said to have been crucified by the vile Carthaginians. This didn't preclude the Roman pagans from venerating him as a kind of martyr. The goddess Andromeda was called "the crucified maiden". As for the Jews, while it's true that they regarded crucifixion to be a curse, they never condemned the freedom fighters crucified by the Romans. Yet, Hengel claims that no Jew could have regarded a crucified man as the Messiah. Why not? The Messiah would have been a freedom fighter. Besides, the Christians claimed that Jesus had been resurrected after his shameful death, thereby proving that he actually was the Messiah (and undoing the curse of the cross). In the Wisdom of Solomon, a righteous man claiming to be the Son of God is condemned by his enemies to a "shameful death". At least some Jews would have understood this as a reference to the Messiah. Once again, what is the problem with a freedom fighter being shamefully crucified?

Hengel also have problems with the many symbolic crosses and crucifixions of pagan thought and mythology. He brushes them aside as "docetic", claiming that the crucifixion of Jesus was the real thing. But surely there could be a connection? Plato talks about the righteous man being hanged on a pole, and the Son of God lying cross-wise across the universe. Docetic or not, this is remarkably similar to Christian formulations, something pointed out by both Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. Justin called Christianity "perfected Platonism". Hengel seems to imagine that if the crucifixion of Jesus is a real historical event, it simply cannot have any further symbolic significance, except the one given it by official NT exegetes. A surprisingly simplistic attitude for an erudite scholar.

But then, Hengel have always been wary of any overtly pagan antecedents for Christianity. This is curious, since he has written several books on the Hellenization of the Jews after the Greek conquest of the Levant and Egypt. Hellenism was, of course, pagan. Hengel seems perfectly happy with Jewish precursors to the Christian concept of the Son of God, but he is at pains to reject all and sundry pagan influences. Sometimes, I wonder whether he really means what he says, since he is perfectly aware of some rather striking parallels, such as the worship of Dionysus not far from Cana, where Jesus is said to have performed a Dionysian miracle (turning water into wine).

It seems that Hengel crucified his reason for the sake of a narrow, orthodox apologetic. Some things are too hot to handle...