Llyricist

Oh, and if an HJ existed, the embarrassment criterea is still irrelevent, the fact that the crucifixion was central to Paul's theology (in exclusion of EVERYTHING else about HJ) attests well enough to its historocity....in the context of there being an HJ.

MortalWombat

If you are implying that the word "skandalon" means embarrassment, I did a google search of "skandalon" at www.greeknewtestament.com for the word skandalon, which occurs eight times, and the most common translation seems to be stumbling block, while sometimes also being translated as offense or foolishness. It never refers to embarrassment.

Paul uses the word 4 times:

• Galatians 5:11
  
  Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
  egw de adelfoi ei peritomhn eti khrussw ti eti diwkomai ara kathrghtai to skandalon tou staurou
  
  NIV
  Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.
  
  American Standard Version
  But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away.
  
  Young's Literal Translation
  And I, brethren, if uncircumcision I yet preach, why yet am I persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away;
  
  
  Romans 11:9
  
  Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
  kai dabid legei genhqhtw h trapeza autwn eiV pagida kai eiV qhran kai eiV skandalon kai eiV antapodoma autoiV
  
  NIV
  And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
  
  American Standard Version
  And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them:
  
  Young's Literal Translation
  and David saith, `Let their table become for a snare, and for a trap, and for a stumbling-block, and for a recompense to them;
  
  
  Romans 14:13
  
  Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
  mhketi oun allhlouV krinwmen alla touto krinate mallon to mh tiqenai proskomma tw adelfw h skandalon
  
  NIV
  Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.
  
  American Standard Version
  Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother`s way, or an occasion of falling.
  
  Young's Literal Translation
  no longer, therefore, may we judge one another, but this judge ye rather, not to put a stumbling-stone before the brother, or an offence.
  
  
  1 Corinthians 1:23 (here, estaurwmenon is translated as stumbling block, while skandalon gets translated as foolishness).
  
  Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
  hmeiV de khrussomen criston estaurwmenon ioudaioiV men skandalon ellhsin de mwrian
  
  NIV
  but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
  
  American Standard Version
  but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness;
  
  Young's Literal Translation
  also we -- we preach Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness,

In the case of the "skandalon" of the crucifixion, he never says that it is a problem for Christians, only to Jews and Greeks.

capnkirk

Vinnie, Installment 3 of 3. Interleaved comments to yahoo quoted posters is in red.
The yahoo quotes you offered simply do not support that. As for Crossan, as an ordained Catholic priest, how could you expect him to publicly claim otherwise, no matter what his inner reservations might be.

There is perhaps ONE implication of Jesus' crucifixion that would prove embarrassing to Xtians, and that is: Jesus' crucifixion labeled him as a POLITICAL criminal, which would support the orthodox Jewish messianic understanding and thus characterize Xtians as having reinvented Jesus (as the christ) after his death. In fact, line was proposed by a Xtian scholar (sorry, I don't recall his name at the moment) in the early 19th century. Since then, several others have expanded on that line. At any rate, your argument that because crucifixion was embarrassing, then Jesus' crucifixion/resurrection must all be true is not supported by the arguments you have presented; in fact closer inspection argues for the opposite conclusion.

If the course of events was easy to construct, there would be little need for biblical scholarship on the subject at all. The ONLY reason it is easy for you is because, AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH, you accept the Xtian claims. This is your starting point and your finishing point. Anything that threatens that article must be explained away at all costs. Your preceding arguments are about as credible as your "end of discussion" closing threat.

Ed: In view of the post that immediately follows this one, so much for your "end of discussion" threat.

Vinnie

Why not? YOu can't refute it.

LOL Nice caricature. The point is, if the Gospel authors were engaged in creative activity, then we would not expect them to create details that run counter to their goals. If winning over Gentiles is the goal, inventing a crucified Jesus is not the way to go. The point is that the early church would not create its own problems. Its a very sound criteria. The fact that you so readily dismiss it only serves to show your uniformed bias which you delineate in the following comment:

THis is all but laughable. Do you think the early Christians only retained that which was embarrassing? If it is not embarrassing we simply lack this positive criteria in favor of it's authenticity.

Furthermore, lacking positive criteria that an event occured does NOT mean the event did not concur. Simply logic dictates that we laqck belief i nthe event. We do not have solid grounds to affirm the event, but unless you can show it is not historicaly your assumption that it is false is ridiculous.

This only supports my argument. If they were creative (which they were) we do not expect them to invent a tradition that creates problems for themselves.

LOL So says the modern exegete with 2000 years of Christian coloring behind him. Obviously you have no interest in learning what it was actually like in the honor and shame culture 2000 years ago. You are content to project your own fantasies onto the Gospel authors.

This was adressed. Some guy on the list was arguing this on X-Talk and the sharks tore him to shred.

Everything that comments on crucifixion suggests that it would not have been created. Failure to accept this is failing to accept the primary source material from the time period and the nature of this status degredation ritual in 1c Palestine.

Not having a human Jesus crucified by Rome. The "Christ" theme started from the beginning. It would have undermined Jesus' claim to be messiah. This is why so many apologists had to defend it beginning with Paul and all the apologetics in the Gospels.

Vinnie

capnkirk

Vinnie,

You mentioned Crossan, so let's see what Crossan has to say about the reliabilaity of the gospels;
From these two quotes, it seems that Crossan doesn't share your or JTurtle's implicit trust in the reliability of the canonized versions of the gospels at all.

Llyricist

But according to Doherty, the gospel writers did NOT invent the crucifixion.... Paul did.

And the Flavian hypothesis requires the crucifixion as well in its symbolism of taking over the nationalist Judaism movement.

Here we see a straw MJ theory being trotted out to be taken on by the magical "embarassment criterea".... how impressive.

capnkirk

BRAVO! Llyricist. TOTALLY CORRECT!!

Vinnie

Some of your comments make amatuer mistakes so your opinion of Ted Weeden doesn't count for much in my opinion.

Ted: Richard, when I say that as a historian I am convinced that the crucifixion of Jesus is a historical fact, I am making a judgment based upon the best available evidence, weighing that evidence against various probabilities, and then deciding which of the various probabilities is most cogent and persuasive. (claim to credential = objectivity)

capn Notice that the "existence" of a historical JC is not subjected to this standard.

It may be that only your imagination allows one to rationally bifurcate between the two here. Why are they not interconnected?

Ted: In the case of the crucifixion it is, as has been pointed out by others on this list, multiply attested by both Christian sources (Paul, the Gospels) and non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus [unless Josephus' reference to Jesus' crucifixion is a total Christian corruption of the Josephus text] and the Roman historian Tacitus) of the first century.

Capn Is he claiming that each of these attestations is independent of the others?

This is the biggest amatuer blunder in your first post. You have to ask? Anyone with any knowledge of the field would know that he means "mulitple [independent] attestation. That is assumed. The "triple tradition" is not multiply attested (3x indepdnenly). It comes from a single source (Mark). All the scholars on X-Talk know this already. When he says Paul and Mark he means indepdnent, as the majority view accepts this and he wouldn't be using non multiple indepdnent attestation as evidence.

Ted: There is no evidence that any source of the first century states or infers that Jesus died a natural death or by some other tragedy, or that Jesus was mythologically viewed as having been apotheosized or translated to heaven, as some traditions hold to be the case for Elijah, Moses, etc.

capn Again, the existence of a HJC is presumptive.

The existence of Jesus is established by the crucifixion traditions and by the fact that we have primary contemporary source data confirming that the followers of Jesus mentioned in many different texts [YES INDEPENDENTLY] were real live people. But the crucifixion itself is very strong evidence itself. Add in a bunch of other pieces and abracadabra.

Ted Using the criterion of embarrassment, employed by some Jesus scholars, such as Meyer, would suggest that Jesus' death by crucifixion could only have been an embarrassing, even scandalous, fact about him (see Paul) in the view of non-Jewish or Gentile persons, since his crucifixion would have been recognized as a clear indication that Jesus was guilty of some capital crime against the Roman Empire.

You would expect it "minimized" or apologeticized as is the account of Jesus' baptism by John. All of a sudden John is the precursor of Jesus who merely prepares the way for him. His baptism "had to occur" and so forth. Matthew and Luke found Mark's (apologized) account of the baptism problematic but they did not eliminate it. They apologized it further than Mark did. This REFUTES you. There is also the issue that the apologists simply could not "INGORE" or minimize very firmly embedded tradition which is what the cross turns out to be. The skandalous notion of Jesus' [the Messiah?] death by crucifixion could not be swept under the rug.

Also another reason that the event was not minimized is that many Christians actually believed Jesus rose from the dead in the early church. Paul, being a Pharisess--and Pharisees = bodily resurrection in that era--championed this. It was the all important event for him. Jesus was the first-fruits...his death inaugurated a new era. The general resurrection was at hand and the world was ending.

Ted: If Jesus did not die from crucifixion, it is difficult to explain why Christians, interested in winning converts among Gentiles of the time, would have invented such a tradition, since such a tradition would in effect serve to undermine their evangelistic cause rather than support it.

Capn Now in a complete diversion, he uses these grounds to explain why Paul made the Crucifixion/Resurrection the central tenet of his salvation plan for the world. Without "Christ's sacrifice", there would be no ministry of Paul. This would argue that Paul would have been tempted to invent such an event rather than hide it. Besides, if you actually "read" Paul's letters, there is much more evidence that he understood this crucifixion/resurrection to have happened in the lower levels of the heavens rather than on earth anyway.

First you assert Paul made up the crucifixion as if Paul is our ONLY independent attestation of this. If sources independent of Paul mention the crucifixion then your argument is defeated. Welcome to multiple attestation 101.

Second, Paul made the cross his central piece because of his vision and the other beliefs Jesus rose. He thought it inaugurated a new kingdom.

It was also firmly embedded tradition that had to be dealt with. And How do you dispute Weeden here only yo accept Weak's comment below? This seems inconsistent.

As all studies of the era show and the quotes from scholars above, this [crucifixion] would not have been created by the first century Jews in Palestine. It was dealt with and the apologetics were probably helped along by the mistaken bvelief that Jesus had rose.


Is it valid to bifurcate between religion in Politics in regard to first century Jews? And yeah, the divinity of Jesus came later.

And it is nice to know you agree with this from Weaks:

Vinnie

Vinnie

Who said they were?

As Acts and Paul indepdnently attest (first and third stratum), Jesus followers initially settled in Jerusalem. That whole jerusalem school thing. The controversy over Gentiles taken polace there? The Gentile mission, etc.

Vinnie

Vinnie

This has been addressed over and over again in this thread. Paul made it foundation. That is ALL you have.

The multiple attestation and embarrassment of the data (as evidenced by all the extrabiblical treatments of it) in this honor and shame culture refute you.

Vinnie