aa5874

The scriptures of the Apostles, gMatthew and gJohn, appear to have been written long after the so-called "Paul" was dead and buried. You must remember that "Paul's" conversion and history, as written in Acts, are likely to be fiction, it appears that "Paul" was no missionary at all.

neilgodfrey

Ever wonder why no bible gospel author knew anything about that verse? And why it only makes its first appearance in the heretical Gospel of Peter and the Roman Catholic Justin Martyr from the mid second century?

Ever wonder how a translation of a Greek version of a Psalm could be "from the original" since the Psalm was presumably originally written in Hebrew?

Ever wonder how any mistranslation ever arose in any text if the first translation to ever be made was from "the original"? According to your argument, if it was from the original it had to be a correct translation. And so therefore a later translation of that translation also had to be accurate because the first translation was from the original . . . . and on and on through every translation. At what point would or could anyone ever make a mistranslation? Or is there no such thing as a mistranslation and can the Hebrew and Septuagint meanings of this verse be reconciled with enough faith?

But I do appreciate this being brought to my attention -- in ref to another thread it establishes the Gospel of Peter as indeed late, drawing on a Christian rendition of the LXX.

neilgodfrey

Not meaning to split hairs, but do you mean "Jesus" and "crucified" or can we extend "Jesus" to cover "Christ" and "crucified" to cover "sacrificed" and/or just killed in some way?

mountainman

Actually the priority in theory may go to the (questionable) letters of Pontius Pilate. When in precise chronological terms did Pilate die? Do his (questionable) letters mention that Jesus was Crucified?

Best wishes



Pete Brown

spamandham

I think Bob Price, et. all, make a pretty good case that those portions of 1 Corinthians are part of a much later pastoral layer. If that's true, then the idea that Jesus was crucified shows up first in the mid 2nd century - ~100 years after the supposed events.

The epistles effectively admit that Paul is a composite character by having his name changed from Saul to Paul - a classic syncretic technique.

schilling.klaus

There's still Philippans 2:5-11 which is often considered as a pre-Pauline form.
Alas, it's been doubted whether the mention of the cross is original to that hymn.

Klaus Schilling

Toto

Do you mean that Acts admits that Saul/Paul is a syncretic character? The epistles do not describe Paul with any other name. (They do mention a companion of Paul named Silas or Silvanus, which is supposed to be the same as Saulus.)

And Acts does not have Paul change his name - in Acts 13, Saul meets with a king named Sergius Paulus, and the text tells us that Saul's name was also Paul, and refers to him as Paul for the rest of the story.

I have felt that this was some indication that the Paul in Acts was a combination of one or more people, but I didn't know that it was a classic technique. Do you have a reference for that?

spamandham

Oops. Yes.

I seem to recall Price making a comment to that effect in The Pre-Nicene New Testament, but I'm going from memory so could be mixed up (like above).

JoeWallack

JW:
"Jesus" can be used interchangeably (so to speak) with "Christ". Regarding "crucified", an X-cellent question. The only limit for purposes of this Thread is Paul's use of the specific word. What Paul meant by that word (if I understand your question correctly) is fair game here.

The most/only detail Paul seems to give about Jesus' supposed crucifixion is:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Galatians_3

"3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"

No mention of "crucifixion" but rather hung from a tree. Hanging seems to me to be a more plausible Form of death. If Jesus created a disturbance in the Temple during Passover he probably would have been summarily executed by the Temple guard, under Jewish control, and hung (at least at some point during the execution). The problems I have with crucifixion is that all Christian testimony indicates Roman authority would not have considered Jesus a serious political threat, "Mark's" original crucifixion story is completely unbelievable and it doesn't make sense that if the leader of a movement was crucified in Jerusalem his movement would be free to continue promoting him in Jerusalem. There also appears to be no quality evidence that anyone who knew Jesus claimed he was crucified.

It's quite possible, if not likely, that Paul was the First to assert that Jesus was "crucified", Paul meant it Figuratively and the reason we do not have anything written by anyone who knew Jesus claiming that Jesus was crucified, is because Jesus was not crucified.



Joseph

REVELATION, n.
A famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing.

The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original Second Century Gospel.

aa5874

But there is no quality evidence that anyone knew Jesus in the first place. There is just no credible non-apologetic source that can support Jesus of Nazareth.

So, who knew Jesus?