Ben C Smith

IIRC, both Crossan (cannot remember which book) and Price (Deconstructing Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)) discuss this saying. Price has a large collection of parallels from the Cynics.

Ben.

Toto

Crossan mentions the quote in The Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) in the course of discussing the meaning of "carrying one's cross" and whether it should be understood as prophecy retrojected back onto Jesus' lips, or as Jesus recognizing the risks of his actions.

Google Books page

spamandham

Fascinating. Thanks for digging it up!

...the passion as a mixture of Greek philosophy and Jewish poetry (Psalm 22/Isaih 54)? who would have thunk it.

andrewcriddle

Epictetus may have been influenced by Christianity http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Discourses4.html It depends on whether Epictetus means Christians by Galilaeans.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
I think the Implication here is that Paul's claimed source was Revelation (received from Jesus). But there is evidence supporting both, Received from Jesus verses Received from claimed Historical witness. I see some determinative categories of evidence as:

1) Specific use in 1C:

http://www.zhubert.com/study?word=%C...%20Corinthians

1 Corinthians 11:23

ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον

"For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; (ASV)"

1 Corinthians 15:3

παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς

Since the previous and near use Explicitly identifies Jesus as source there is a strong Implication that the later use has the same source in the absence of qualification. Other categories would have to have pretty good evidence going the other way to overturn this one.

2) Paul's context in general regarding Source:

Probably the clearest of all possible categories here as Paul not only consistently but with emphasis declares his Source is Jesus. I don't believe Paul ever Explicitly identifies historical witness as a Source. There are a few Implications though that he compares his Revelation info with historical witness.

3) The meaning of "received" in General.

The meaning usually is a historical witness source but that is because the context usually would not include a possible divine source. Still, dominant usage would support received from historical witness.

4) Paul's own commentary on his usage.

15:11 "Whether then [it be] I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed."

Seems to me you could take this either way. Humans who were historical witness and that Paul knew say the same thing so it would be logical that they were the source for Paul here. On the other hand the overall context is the reason Paul mentions supposed historical witness here is to support his Assertians. The distinction "I or they" Implies disagreement on other matters. Like maybe Source. Paul's source = Jesus, they's source = history.

Paul never wants to confess a human source for knowledge about Jesus. He wants to make himself equal and than some by claiming he has the same source as human witness had, Jesus (just a dead one). Presumably this means that sometimes his knowledge agrees with historical witness, sometimes it disagrees and probably usually, it is in between.

The key to our disagreement is if Paul claims that his Revelation agrees with some of what Historical witness told him or at least he was aware of, than was his source primarily Revelation because he accepts everything from Revelation, some of which does not agree to historical witness, or was his source primarily historical witness because for the most part Paul's claimed Revelation just Confirmed what historical witness already claimed?

All of this is secondary to the purpose of this Thread as has already been pointed out, in 1C Paul never asserts that historical witness claimed Jesus was 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.

spamandham

FYI, this is part of the pastoral strata according to Price.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...apocrypha.html

patcleaver

Translations of the NT are incredibly untrustworthy - it is all spin. As far as I can tell all the translations of the OT and NT and early Christian writings still contain intentional mistranslations even though correct translation has been available for 1000 years. The fraud mill goes on an on.

Stauros literally means pole or stake. There is nothing in the koine Greek of the NT that suggests that Jesus was crucified or hung on a cross.

I do not know of any reference anywhere where stauros is used unambiguously to indicate a cross or crucifixion.

I think that the cross and crucifixion are 3rd or 4th century inventions.

Can anyone find anything in other Christian writing before the 3th century where cross or crucifixion is really mentioned in koine Greek?

The English translation I have of Justin Martyr's first apology uses the words crucifixion and cross, I think they are intentional mistranslations, but I do not have a koine Greek version. Can anyone tell us whether Justin Martyr really mentions cross or crucifixion in the koine Greek?

Surely someone before Jerome in 400 CE mentions the cross and crucifixion.

Couldn't Jesus have just been stoned or beaten to death while nailed to a stake or pole?

spamandham

You may well be right. The idea of the cross, if "stauros" is translated as 'pole', does not show up until the 4th century, when it explodes on the scene under Constantine.

I hesitate to state the obvious, having been through the origins of cross symbolism here before.

Ben C Smith

What Greek word would you use to indicate crucifixion?

Have you checked Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Martin Hengel?

Seneca the Younger, To Marcia On Consolation 20.3:

Video istic cruces, ne unius quidem generis sed aliter ab aliis fabricatas; capite quidam conversos in terram suspendere; alii per obscena stipitem egerunt; alii brachia patibulo explicuerunt.

I see crosses there, not just one certain kind but made in many different ways; some suspend their victims head down, others put a stake through their genitals; others stretch out their arms on the patibulum.

The Alexamenos graffito, late century I or early century II, from the Pædagogioum on the Palatine in Rome:



Barnabas 9.8:

And, because the cross [ο σταυρος] in the T [εν τω Τ] was to have grace, he says also three hundred. So he reveals Jesus in the two letters [the I and the H], and in the remaining one [the T] the cross.

I guess. But crucifixion victims were usually just left to die on their own as crow food. Pseudo-Manetho (Hengel, page 9):

Punished with limbs outstretched, they see the stake as their fate; they are fastened (and) nailed to it in the most bitter torment, evil food for birds of prey and grim pickings for dogs.

Ben.

spin

Not wishing to enter into the discussion...
... I think your dating for the Alexamenos graffito to be quite astandard. The majority of scholars who have analysed it date it to the third century, though some to the beginning of that century. You should know that the building where it was found was not constructed until about 90 CE and according to one analyst the graffito was done where there was "Severan redecoration". If that is correct then the 3rd c. is guaranteed.


spin