JoeWallack

JW:
Ookay, let's list out the uses of "crucify" in Galatians:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Galatians






JW:
Note that every use of "crucify" in Galatians is figurative. We have the following reasons to think that Paul is referring to a figurative crucifixion of Jesus:

1) In a previous epistle, 1 Thessalonians, Paul never uses the word, suggesting that the idea has not yet been introduced.

2) In Galatians Paul always uses the word figuratively.

3) Paul provides a possible related and alternative means of death, hanging:

4) Paul explains in Galatians that arguments can be figurative:

5) Paul's key comparison in Galatians is the physical mark of circumcision to the spiritual Mark of crucifixion so Paul has a literary reason to use "crucify".

6) 3:1 indicates that after receiving information from those opposed to Paul the Galatians did not accept that Jesus was crucified in some sense.

7) Paul never gives any details about the supposed crucifixion.

8) Everything needed to counter the argument that if Paul was claiming a non-historical crucifixion it would have been explicitly addressed in Galatians, is potentially answered in Galatians. Paul confesses that Jesus was hung but takes it as a type of crucifixion in a spiritual sense.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
I've put forward in the OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source Thread the argument that "Mark" used Paul's figurative use of "crucify" in Galatians
to subdue and extinguish passion as a key idea for "Mark's" Passion narrative. To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original crucifixion narrative ("Mark") has major elements of fiction, such as "Mark's" Jesus' lack of passion during the Passion being based on Paul's advice to followers to subdue and extinguish their passions, this undermines the historical potential of all elements of the Passion, including the crucifixion itself.

Updated summary of the argument that Paul was the first to assert that Jesus was crucified [Additions in Red]:

Weakness of potential historical witness evidence:

1) No extant writing by first-hand historical witness asserting crucifixion.

2) Paul never claims Jesus' crucifixion while contemporary to Jesus.

3) Potential second-hand historical witness Paul, never asserts that first-hand historical witness asserted crucifixion.

4) In the disputed Corinthians (which I think is original) Paul only says that historical witness agrees with him that Jesus died (doesn't really narrow it down, does it?). That would have been a good time to mention the crucifixion, yet not only does Paul not mention crucifixion, he phrases historical witness as opposed to him.

5) Paul does not provide any details for the crucifixion.

6) The best potential extant historical witness, Q, makes no mention of crucifixion.

7) There's an implication from Paul's letters that after he proselytizes in virgin territory, historical witness comes in to clean up his shit and convinces many that Paul is not accurately promoting Jesus. The supposed crucifixion could be part of this.

8) Paul's comment that a Christ crucified is foolishness to the Jews.

9) Subsequent Christian crucifixion Assertians seem to use Paul as a primary source.

"Mark" appears to have used Paul's figurative use of "crucify" in Galatians to subdue and extinguish passion as a key idea for "Mark's" Passion narrative. To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original crucifixion narrative ("Mark") has major elements of fiction, such as "Mark's" Jesus' lack of passion during the Passion being based on Paul's advice to followers to subdue and extinguish their passions, this undermines the historical potential of all elements of the Passion, including the crucifixion itself.

10) Paul's followers, late first century, who presumably would have been in the best position to know what the historical Paul and his writings meant, never mention Peter.

11) The first known crucifixion narrative, in "Mark", in general has an anti-historical witness attitude and specifically casts the best potential first-hand witness, Jesus' Disciples, as opposing the idea/prediction of Jesus' Passion, never understanding/accepting the need and not witnessing the crucifixion or subsequently promoting Jesus after.

12) There's general agreement that the ending of "Mark" showing disciples as aware of the crucifixion is forged. The other Canonical Gospels using original "Mark" as the basic story, have differing disciple awareness of the crucifixion. This suggests that there was no historical witness of the crucifixion available to the Canonical authors.

13) Christianity is blessed with multiple forged claims of first-hand witness to the crucifixion (I have Faith that every Ruler of the Age is covered here, Peter, Caiphais, Herod, Pilate as well as the ending of "Mark", Amen).

14) "Mark's" related narrative is smeared with implausibility indicating a lack of historical details.

15) Subsequent crucifixion narratives closely follow "Mark" indicating lack of available historical witness.

16) Common sense, always the best argument, tells us that if Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem it's unlikely his movement would have been permitted to promote him in Jerusalem.

17) Statistics (most people, even than, did not die from crucifixion).

18) Possibility that Christianity censored evidence disputing crucifixion.

19) Paul is a very bad witness in general making it more likely that he asserts what was not historical for the following reasons:

1) Age - 2,000 years creates doubt all by itself.

2) Subject matter

a) Religion is a poor source for history.

b) Religion utilizes the figurative more than history (so Paul's use may be figurative).

3) Impeached credibility - A primary argument of Paul is that his Jesus is the logical conclusion of the Jewish Bible which is clearly a wrong conclusion.

4) Source - Paul clearly states that his primary source is revelation and explicitly denies any significant human source.

5) Variation

a) Marcion, a comparable witness to Paul verses the orthodox, saw a significantly different Pauline corpus.

b) Paul's writings contain contradictions and ambiguity.

c) The orthodox version of Paul (Acts) differs significantly from Paul's Paul in that orthodox Paul is a partner with first-hand witness while Paul's Paul is a competitor.

6) Institutional discount - The orthodox have preserved the extant evidence and had motive and opportunity to make changes which improved orthodox assertians. Therefore, any orthodox assertian, such as crucifixion is less likely than the extant evidence indicates.

7) Second hand witness at best

20) And, as the Brits say, "the cruncher":

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=3&version=31
An implication from Paul that Jesus' supposed crucifixion was disputed (thanks Spammer).

Strength of potential Revelation witness evidence:

1) Paul's emphasis in general is on revelation as opposed to historical witness.

2) Specifically in Galatians, where Paul may have mentioned "crucified" for the first time, Paul's claimed sources are:

Explicit claim of Revelation = 4

Explicit denial of historical source = 4

Explicit claim of historical source = 0

3) Specifically, Paul claims the crucifixion is a Mystery understood by revelation.

4) Paul's presumably first Epistle, 1 Thessalonians, makes no reference to crucifixion. This suggests that at the start of Paul's Ministry he was not asserting crucifixion because he had never been told of it either through historical witness or supposed revelation.

5) "Mark's" crucifixion narrative uses Paul's related ideas as a primary source.

6) Christian authors subsequent to Paul, including "Mark", use the Jewish Bible as a primary source for details about the crucifixion.

7) Paul may have used "crucifixion" figuratively. The means of death could have been something less such as hanging on one end (so to speak) or dying of natural causes after devoting a career to the cause on the other end. Every use of "crucified" in Galatians is figurative.

8) In Galatians Paul has a strong literary need to use "crucifixion" as part of a primary contrasting theme. It's the physical marks of circumcision vs. the spiritual Marks of crucifixion.

9) Specifically, there is support in Christian and Jewish writings that Jesus was hung.

10) Paul is going away from historical witness to Gentiles who don't know Jesus. This makes it easier for Paul to say what he wants as there is no historical witness there to dispute him.

11) The better the MJ argument the greater the odds of no crucifixion.


Thus we have it on good Authority that it is likely that Paul was the first to assert the significance of the supposed crucifixion and possible that Paul was the first to assert that Jesus was crucified.

I would like to see more of this type of Inventorying of assertions here at IIDB which can be used as a research and reference guide so we don't have to keep rehashing the same fershlugginer arguments based mainly on proof-texting one or a few verses.



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.

cc Earl Doherty

Analyst

Perhaps this needs to be Wikied?

JoeWallack

JW:
I have previously inventoried the reasons to think that Paul was the first to assert that Jesus was crucified here:


JW:
I will now add to the above another weakness of potential historical witness evidence:

21) Disagreement of Christianity as to details of the supposed crucifixion:

1 - Who crucified Jesus?:

Rival gospel traditions: Herod or Pilate the executioner of Christ? By neilgodfrey

It's commonly thought that Christianity is clear that Pilate crucified Jesus but here is the evidence that Christianity also made assertians that Herod crucified Jesus:

The Gospel of Peter

Quote:

[1] But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod nor one of his judges. And since they did not desire to wash, Pilate stood up. [2] And then Herod the king orders the Lord to be taken away, having said to them, 'What I ordered you to do, do.' [3] But Joseph, the friend of Pilate and of the Lord, had been standing there; and knowing they were about to crucify him, he came before Pilate and requested the body of the Lord for burial. [4] And Pilate, having sent to Herod, requested his body. [5] And Herod said: 'Brother Pilate, even if no one had requested him, we would have buried him, since indeed Sabbath is dawning. For in the Law it has been written: The sun is not to set on one put to death.' And he gave him over to the people before the first day of their feast of the Unleavened Bread.

Justin Martyr DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO

Quote:

85... For every demon, when exorcised in the name of this very Son of God--who is the First-born of every creature, who became man by the Virgin, who suffered, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate by your nation, who died, who rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven--is overcome and subdued.

Quote:

104... And I have shown that, after His crucifixion, they who crucified Him parted His garments among them.

SLAVONIC JOSEPHUS

Quote:

IV... 26. The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. 27. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose. 28. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.

The Acts of Peter

Quote:

VIII... Thou didst harden the heart of Herod and didst inflame Pharaoh and compel him to fight against Moses the holy servant of God; thou didst give boldness unto Caiaphas, that he should deliver our Lord Jesus Christ unto the unrighteous multitude

John 19

Quote:

19:14 Now it was the Preparation of the passover: it was about the sixth hour. And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your King! 15 They therefore cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 16 Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be crucified.

HJ often asserts that it is a historical fact that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. But the above forces a retreat to the position that Jesus was crucified.

Thus we have it on good Authority that it is likely that Paul was the first to assert the significance of the supposed crucifixion and possible that Paul was the first to assert that Jesus was crucified.

I would like to see more of this type of Inventorying of assertions here at IIDB which can be used as a research and reference guide so we don't have to keep rehashing the same fershlugginer arguments based mainly on proof-texting one or a few verses.



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.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

cc Earl Doherty

aa5874

All you have done is accept that Paul was a first century writer and then claim he was the first.

You have never ever shown that the writer Paul did exist in the 1st century and did actually write any thing in that century before the death of Nero.

No analysis of the Pauline writers can be properly done by ignoring Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles will help to show that the Pauline writer may have been the last to assert that Jesus was crucified.


The Church writers claimed Paul wrote epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, now it is believed that these letters were not written by the same person as the writer of Romans, now these findings must produce red flags for Pauline authorship of any other letters with the name Paul.

It can no longer be assumed without any evidence whatsoever that Paul wrote anything and that he wrote them as specified by the church writers who gave erroneous information about Jesus, the disciples, Paul, the authorship of the Gospels, and the time of their time of their writing.

It has never ever been shown to be true that a Pauline writer wrote any thing before the death of Nero about Jesus Christ who was betrayed, crucified, resurrected, ascended to heaven and would return a second time.

Paul was NOT the first to assert Jesus was crucified.

JoeWallack

JW:
I told you bout Christianity, yea.
You know it's corrupt as can be yea.
Well here's another clue for you awll,
The Walpurgis was Paul's.

I previously pointed out that Epictetus, contemporary of Paul, uses "crucified" figuratively:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...%3Achapter%3D2

JW:
In a reflex action, Andrew pointed out that Epictetus may have got the usage from Christians. So much the better as it would be evidence that the Christian usage was understood as figurative in the 1st century.

Super Skeptic Neil Godfree is at it again with his companion Blog:

“Christ crucified”

ON THE POSTERITY OF CAIN AND HIS EXILE [Philo]

Another figurative use of "crucified" by a contemporary of Paul.




Joseph

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


I buried Yeshua

aa5874

The Pauline writer was not the first to assert Jesus was crucified.

"Paul" wrote after the writings of Justin Martyr.

If it is admitted that the author of gMark was the first to write a Gospel and that the Pauline letters were already written and circulated all over the Empire before gMark, then how is that the author of gMatthew, the author of gLuke and even the author of gJohn lifted or appeared to have copied whole passages from gMark, yet did not copy a SINGLE PHRASE from a Pauline letter?

If it is admitted that Paul wrote no details about Jesus, where did the author of gMark get his details from?

The details was not from Paul.

The authors of the Synoptics did not get Isaiah 7.14 from "Paul". They did not get their crucifixion scene from Paul they used the Psalms..

The last words of Jesus on the cross in gMark and Matthew comes from Psalms 22.1 and the last words of Jesus in gLuke comes from Psalms 31.5.

It should also be noted that NO author of the Gospels appears to have ever attended a Pauline Church, ever read a Pauline letter, was a convert of Paul or emulated Paul.

The authors of the Gospels used Hebrew scripture, or the LXX, well-known historical figures, and pagan influences to fabricate their Jesus.

Even the author of Revelations was not influenced by the revelations of "Paul", the author of Revelations was influenced by the dreams and visions found in the book called Daniel.

andrewcriddle

Hi Joe

Although interresting I don't think this is a figurative use of crucified as normally understood.

A paraphrase would be: people who only care about bodily pleasures are bound in a death grip to their bodies in the same way that crucified people are bound in a death grip to their crosses

This sort of simile is not really what I mean by a figurative usage.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

I think Andrew is right. This analogy references the physicality of the crucifixion as strongly as Paul did it in the Corinthians letters.

2 Cr 13:4 For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we shall live with him by the power of God.

cf with :

1 Cr 15:42-43 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power

and (the one Earl has so much problems with) :

1 Cr 15:45-49 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Jiri

DCHindley

Joe,

I think, contrary to Andrew, that this is a literal use of "crucified," not figurative.

Philo observes that the bodies of souls that love the body reflect that disposition by admiring external good things exceedingly, similar to the way that the body of brigands, who are attached (in their affections) to corruptible matter, end up as corrupted matter strung out on an executioner's cross.

DCH