Ben C Smith

IIDB poster spamandham has recently suggested (and I do not think it is the first time that the suggestion has been made here) that Galatians 3.1 indicates some degree of doubt as to the fact of the crucifixion:

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly placarded as crucified?

In order to arrive at the conclusion that this Pauline question admits doubt on the part of his opponents as to the crucifixion, we essentially have to get at what lies behind this statement. I freely admit that, if the opponents did not subscribe to the crucifixion as a fact, then this is indeed the kind of thing we might expect to find in Paul, who would in that case be saying: I placarded Christ as one who was crucified; why are you now doubting this?

However, the real question is whether this is the only background that can be filled in, or even the most likely background. I suggest that another background is just as apt, if not more so. Notice that the claim to have placarded Jesus as crucified (against not placarding him at all) is not exactly the same as a claim to have preached that Jesus was crucified (against a position that he was not). IOW, the meaning depends on the emphasis. If we emphasize that Jesus was indeed crucified, it seems more likely that the background is some measure of doubt as to the crucifixion; if, OTOH, we emphasize that Jesus was placarded (displayed, portrayed) as crucified, then the background may be something else entirely, namely an interpretation (or an overinterpretation or underinterpretation) of the crucifixion on the part of the opponents. In this case, Paul would be saying that he used the crucified Jesus as an object lesson (he placarded him) for another truth, one with which his opponents disagree.

I do not think there is any way in this verse alone to decide between these options. But there is a simple test that can be laid upon the rest of the epistle, or indeed the rest of the Pauline corpus; we simply check to see whether one option or the other is supported by other verses in Galatians. Are there other verses which seem to question the fact of the crucifixion? Or are there other verses which seem to assume it as common currency?

Most references to the crucifixion are going to fall into neither category. For example, when Paul in Galatians 2.20 claims to be crucified with Christ, there is simply no way to tell whether his opponents (Cephas, in this case) would hold that Christ was not crucified at all, that they too are crucified with Christ, or that Christ was crucified, but they are not. It is a simple assertion, and the background is therefore not immediately discernible.

I do not personally know of any of the former verses (ones that seem to question the crucifixion). But I do know of two of the latter verses (ones that assume the crucifixion as common currency) in Galatians.

The first comes in 2.29, the verse that immediately precedes 3.1 (recall that the chapter and verse divisions are not original):

I do not nullify the grace of God, for, if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly.

The two options implied in this verse are (A) that Christ died needfully and (B) that Christ died needlessly. That Christ died (in some sacrificial or effective sense) at all does not seem to be in question, and this is not the kind of statement one would make to someone who doubted his sacrificial death, period.

The second is Galatians 6.12:

Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

Here Paul clearly assumes that his opponents are trying to avoid being persecuted for the cross. This makes no sense if his opponents hold no belief in the cross whatsoever; why would they be persecuted for something they did not even believe in? It makes perfect sense, OTOH, if his opponents hold to the crucifixion and know that it is bound to be controversial among Jews, and therefore hold also to Jewish circumcision in order to blunt the blow. At least we observe the torah, they could say whenever someone raised an eyebrow at their odd belief in a crucified messiah.

Outside of Galatians, within the rest of the Pauline epistles, we have verses like 1 Corinthians 1.23, which affirms that Christ crucified is a message both for Jews and for Greeks. (Compare Romans 1.16.)

Are there any verses within Galatians or somewhere else in the Pauline corpus that would support the other reading of Galatians 3.1?

Ben.

Chili

[QUOTE=Ben C Smith;5692371]IIDB poster spamandham has recently suggested (and I do not think it is the first time that the suggestion has been made here) that Galatians 3.1 indicates some degree of doubt as to the fact of the crucifixion:

To me it is very clear that he called Jesus worshipers bewitched Christians (or 'witches' in short and it wouldn't surprise me if this is where the legend originates that storks bring babies). Their actions proved then bewitched by taking upon themselves the yoke of slavery and sin the second time . . . which is what born again Jesus worshipers do.

From Galations 5:1, "It was for liberty that Christ freed us. So stand firm and do not take on yourselves the yoke of slavery a second time!"

The above is exactly what spiritually empowered self proclaimed Christians do.
Clearly, slavery at its finest that is driven by an internal prod.

And then in verse 4: "Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Chirst and fallen from Gods favor!" (Exclamation marks original).

Saved sinners they call themselves.

dog-on

No doubt, if you have faith, Ben...

Faith in the mystery hidden, but now revealed through Paul, that is...

spin

I tried to get Amaleq13 to make sense of this verse and here you are trying to use it without showing what it actually means.


spin

Ben C Smith

Do you happen to have a link to your brave search into the truth of this verse against his stubborn refusal to go against the grain of his bias?

Ben.

spin

I merely asked him to make sense of the verse, like I do here of you.

As things stand the verse -- let's divide it into three parts -- has a nice clear first and second parts:

osoi thelousin euproswphsai en sakri

outoi anagkazousin umas peritemnesQai

The reason why they force you to be circumcised is that they want to make a good showing in the flesh. But then we get the third part:

monon ina mh tw staurw tou xristou diwkwntai

which means something like "only that they aren't persecuted to the cross of the christ". (I couldn't find other examples of the dative with diwkw.)

This last clause has nothing to do directly with those who want to euproswphsai -- this verb is an attack on those who desire to impress by appearance, coming from "good face" and implying putting on a good show, as in being proud of what they've done.

If they are proud of compelling proselytes to be circumcised, then doing it somehow out of fear of being persecuted for "the cross of christ" doesn't fit them. The best I can make out of these contradictory signals from Paul, is that he is projecting hidden motivations onto those who insisting of circumcision, ie they have nothing directly to do with the people he is talking about.

If you can given more coherence to this verse, I'd like to know. Otherwise I don't think you can use the verse for what you'd like.


spin

Ben C Smith

Yes, well, as I said: Do you have a link?

The ινα simply introduces a purpose clause (ινα plus the subjunctive). The dative is causal, of which Thucydides offers an example in Peloponnesian War 7.75.5:

Kαι τουτων οι τε αλλοι παντες εφερον οτι τις εδυνατο εκαστος χρησιμον, και οι οπλιται και οι ιππης παρα το ειωθος αυτοι τα σφετερα αυτων σιτια υπο τοις οπλοις, οι μεν απορια ακολουθων, οι δε απιστια.

And all the rest of these each bore whatever he could which might be of use, and the hoplites and cavalry, against custom, bore their own foodstuffs under arms, some for [because of] a lack of followers, others for [because of] a lack of faith [in their followers].

The causal datives here are απορια and απιστια. Lack of followers or lack of faith in them is the reason (or cause) for this uncustomary carrying of food.

So Galatians 6.12, literally rendered, comes out:

Οσοι θελουσιν ευπροσωπησαι εν σαρκι, ουτοι αναγκαζουσιν υμας περιτεμνεσθαι, μονον ινα τω σταυρω του Χριστου μη διωκωνται.

As many men as wish to make a good showing in your flesh, these men compel you to be circumcised, only so that they might not be persecuted for [because of] the cross of Christ.

The cross is the potential reason (or cause) for the persecution.

If these people do not accept the cross, it is hard to see how they would be persecuted for or because of the cross, no matter what they held with regard to circumcision. But, if they already accept the cross, which is scandal enough on its own, they know that too many innovations will get them ostracized or worse by even more of the population. So, in order to minimize any persecution from their fellow Jews, they require strict maintenance of the law, even for gentiles. Okay, so our belief in a crucified messiah is perhaps a little strange, but you gotta admit, we sure do the Torah up right!

Ben.

spin

If I had one, I'd give it to you, but I merely remember having mentioned the matter and I can't think of a search at the moment that would provide a link. -- Just found a way. It was here:

Amaleq13: 6:12
spin: You don't understand the text, so how can you use it?

Thanks for the backgrounder on the use of dative, though I had no real problem with it for understanding the verse: it was just a piece of grammar that I didn't have control of. It had nothing to do with the issue of the post.

But, woosh. You have not touched on the problem I pointed out in this verse. There is a nice clear reason supplied for them compelling circumcision, ie to look good in other people's eyes for they are acting righteously according to the law. Suddenly he tries to give an entirely different reason for compelling circumcision, a reason that doesn't really make sense, ie that those compelling don't want to be persecuted because of the cross of christ.

Paul makes clear with 6:13, "they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh", what the reason he sees for the compulsion. It's as though the second reason -- "only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of christ" -- had no effect at all, perhaps just a low shot afterthought.


spin

Ben C Smith

Then why did you translate it as persecuted to the cross of the Christ? What does that mean?

Exactly. I said as much.

I explained this, too. How did you miss it? The post was not all that long.

Ben.

spin

It's a simple rendering of the dative. Perhaps I could have put the "to" in quotes or something.


Is it supposed to be the last few words of the following?

If these people do not accept the cross, it is hard to see how they would be persecuted for or because of the cross, no matter what they held with regard to circumcision. But, if they already accept the cross, which is scandal enough on its own, they know that too many innovations will get them ostracized or worse by even more of the population. So, in order to minimize any persecution from their fellow Jews, they require strict maintenance of the law, even for gentiles. Okay, so our belief in a crucified messiah is perhaps a little strange, but you gotta admit, we sure do the Torah up right!

Your attempted explanation is rather inverted in impact from what Paul was saying. You concentrate on what Paul doesn't. It seems to me that you aren't reading what Paul wrote. And you don't seem to be reading what I wrote:

Paul makes clear with 6:13, "they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh", what the reason he sees for the compulsion. It's as though the second reason -- "only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of christ" -- had no effect at all, perhaps just a low shot afterthought.

Try and answer this: how does 6:12c fit into the greater discourse of 6:12-15?


spin