Steven Carr

Galatians 3:1 'You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.'

How did that happen 'before their very eyes'?

Why did the fact that Jesus was crucified need to be demonstrated - unless it was a theological statement about Jesus and not a historical one?

And why would any Christian doubt that Jesus was crucified?

If the crucifixion was a non-extraordinary historical fact about Jesus, as ordinary a statement as that Pilate was the governor at the time, then why did it need to be demonstrated?

After all, we are often told that Paul does not mention more amazing things than the crucifixion, because all those Gospel facts were all background knowledge for his readers that did not need to be made explicit.

So why the struggle over such basic historical elements as crucifixion?

Unless Paul had difficulty demonstrating something which had never happened?

Amaleq13

According to Strong's (by way of the online BLB), what you have translated as "clearly portrayed" is prographō which means:

1) to write before (of time)
a) of old set forth or designated before hand (in the scriptures of the OT)
2) to depict or portray openly
a) to write before the eyes of all who can read
b) to depict, portray, paint, before the eyes

So, is Paul saying that they were given or shown a text that described the crucifixion?

gstafleu

Amaleq, if we take meaning 1, can't it be that Paul is simply referring to the "scriptures"? IOW, Paul is just repeating what he says elsewhere: that he found out about the whole thing from the scriptures.

Gerard Stafleu

Steven Carr

Really? No apostles to say personally that they knew this Jesus , who got crucified?

Amaleq13

I would think that remains a viable possibility though I would think that, rather than page through the entire collection of Hebrew Scripture, Paul (or someone) might have taken the time to collect and copy only those passages considered relevant.

Amaleq13

I think definition 2 allows for that. Paul could have staged an entire play depicting the events.

The point, however, is that the full definition of the phrase allows for something other than actually seeing Jesus get crucified and or watching a re-enactment of that crucifixion.

gstafleu

That brings up something I've been wondering about, maybe you know. Is there reason to assume that these "scriptures" are only the Hebrew scriptures (more or less as we find them in the OT these days), or could there have been other documents as well that Paul considers "grapha"?

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13

It is my understanding that the word he uses in, for example 1 Cor 15:3 specifically refers to the Hebrew Scripture but the word in Gal 3:1 is a more generic reference to something written.

Antipope Innocent II

Not in far off Galatia, no.

Clouseau

The message of the gospel had been given with such clarity and emphasis it was as though the Galatians had seen the crucifixion for themselves. There is a measure of biting sarcasm here; orators of the time were apt to dramatise with pictorial language, even theatrical techniques, to sway people into accepting things they would not believe by plain, sober argument. So 'Before your very eyes' is in antithesis to 'Who has bewitched you?'

This was a reference to the time of conversion of the Galatians.

No doubt the Galatians continued to believe in the crucifixion with their minds, but their actions in being circumcised betrayed them, Paul wrote. The Galatians were acting as though they were still under the Law, which was the aim of the Pharisaical influence they had fallen foul of.