OneInFundieville

Even the canonical account attests to a presuppositional belief in resurrection.

From Mark 6:

King Herod heard about this, for Jesus' name had become well known. Some were saying, "John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him." Others said, "He is Elijah."

In line with such, it appears many didn't require all that much convincing of a resurrection, even a physical one based upon this account in Mark.

There are other similarly interesting passages about resurrections other than Jesus'.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Iasion,

Thanks. I think "deadened" works well here too.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spin

Oh crap, Iason. Philosopher Jay has committed the cardinal sin of ignoring the common usage of the terminology under investigation, turned to metaphorical usage of the word then generalized from the metaphor back to the common usage. There is no way to get out of the fact that the words based on staur- deal with crucifixion (as can be seen by the translations into Latin). However, Jay plainly chooses two cases that were obviously metaphorical in usage -- given that we can see how the word is generally used across Greek literature of the age -- and decides on them to create a new meaning for staurow, rather than the common meaning of "crucify".

If after a domestic attack a wife says to husband "you are dead to me", do we rush to create a new meaning of the word "dead", or do we realize that this is a metaphor. Obviously the husband isn't dead. Jay, however, would want to redefine the word "dead" rather than accept the fact that in this case the wife is using the word somewhat creatively, as in his examples with Ignatius and Paul.

Paul helps his readers understand his use of the verb staurow when he uses it in concert with the noun stauros ("cross"), Gal 6:14. Of course, Jay can ignore the usage of stauros throughout Greek literature and redefine the latter as well. How might one read Phil 2:8, "he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death -- even death of the cross." Normally, one could say overwhelmingly, stauros is a physical object (are there any clear examples in any classical Greek literature where it isn't?). The relation of "death" to "cross" should make the significance clear even to Jay. A cross is a cross. And when used in conjunction with the verb staurow, one must conclude that the verb means "crucify".

So many times in this forum we've seen this blunder, repeated here by Jay, of cherry-picking examples that get used to redefine words, while ignoring the common meanings of the words involved and while not considering the evidence from the specific context of the words. How can one start from a random example of the use of staurow and find that it doesn't mean what it normally means without contextual clues? You can't.

There is a reason why people study linguistics. That is to learn how languages work. It is plain from Jay's sophistry that he hasn't as yet learnt.

And Iason, you should know better than 'I tried to figure out anew what Paul meant by "crucified" from the context - I came up with "deadened"'. Why would you need to figure out anew something that is plain throughout Greek literature? Besides the odd metaphorical use of staurow -- for we all use metaphors without needing to redefine words --, does Paul say anything to make you think that he doesn't use the verb like everyone else of the period?


spin

Dreadnought

Perhaps it is, but as I make a new thread, or even participate in one, once every blue moon I don't really feel guilty when doing it now.
As I'm neither a mythicist nor a historicist I feel no obligation to place Tertullian or Epiphanius in either group. They may have thought Ebion mythical and so adding information about him was done to counter the myth or they may have assumed that the root of the Ebionite movement was indeed an Ebion. The case of Paul is different as he is a believer and so he presumably thinks he is writing something that is either spiritually or historically true. Very few are able to believe in their own inventions unless that invention has a basis in something. Now one such basis could have been scripture, as is usually the case with Paul, but with crucifixion/the suffering servant that doesn't seem to be it. At least nobody has shown how you can derive this idea from scripture alone.

Dreadnought

Letting the "why a cross" question rest for a while there is still a need for a source for the "suffered and died"-idea. Does the idea that the Messiah suffered and died for someone make sense in a jewish perspective? Isn't it still a novelty?

Ray Moscow

Mythical figures were crucified or otherwise punished, too -- for instance, Dionysus in Eripides' The Bacchae.

If one interpreted a story like this as an allegory for a spiritual journey, transformation or some such, one might indeed write about it at length.

Wasn't there an astrological event interpreted as a crucifixion, too? I have to look that up.

Ray

spin

Uh-huh. I guess you don't feel any urge to find out what they might have said.

Paul had "visions".

Does that matter?


spin

spin

The Jewish messiah doesn't suffer. He leads the Jewish people to victory.

The servant suffers. The psalmist suffers. The mystery savior suffers and dies. The Greek savior gets packaged in a Jewish context and you get a umm, well, a messiah who suffers and dies.


spin

Iasion

It's odd, but for some reason I very frequently see my name wrongly quoted as Iason. Maybe the ..sion ending is too uncommon.


Paul's work is full of subtle metaphor - I don't think Jay's comments are unreasonable - but heck, I'm no Greek scholar.

Because Paul is NOT like every other writer of the period, his work are highly original and creative, he uses complex metaphors and symbols. His use of certain key words are not at all clear.


Iasion

spin

You didn't answer the question. But let me clarify even more,

does Paul say anything in the specific contexts in which he uses staurow to make you think that he doesn't use the verb like everyone else of the period?

There has to be some evidence from the context in which a word is used to make you think that the word is being used in a less common way. You cannot just decide that he must be because it appeals to some ideas you have. A word will mean to a reader what it usually means unless there are contextual clues where it is used to suggest otherwise. I have seen this simple fact ignored time and again by people who should know better given the tasks they are attempting.

[And congrats on 666 posts!]


spin