aa5874

Well, history will show that Jesus believers were considered cannibals up to the end of the 2nd century. The powerful fiction story was not working or it was not working in their favor for 200 years or so.

It was Emperor Constantine that gave the fiction story ALL the Power.

spamandham

I agree, which is why I think it's inconvenient for the HJ idea.

If Jesus was clearly portrayed as crucified to the Galatians *by Paul*, and *this* is the best Paul has to argue in favor of a contemporary crucifixion of a man of very recent history, ...and even then the Galatians are unswayed, it would be very odd from an HJ perspective.

What's with these dense Galatians, haven't they heard about the crucifixion from sources other than just Paul's performing arts academy? :constern01:

spamandham

I don't believe that is the most literal interpretation, nor really even a sensible one. See Andrew's comment.

ApostateAbe

OK, I did, and I have nothing more to argue, except maybe that you seem to think that the disagreement between Paul and the foolish Galatians is about whether or not a contemporary crucifixion happened, and I think it is very clearly about something else, but I think that is a debate I'll ignore.

spamandham

The contention Paul is having with the Galatians is clearly not related to whether or not there was a historical crucifixion. From Paul's perspective, the argument is "look you stupid Galatians, I showed you the theological significance of the crucifixion and how that frees you from the law...and yet you are drawn to the law nonetheless".

But from my perspective, the interesting thing is the portrayal itself. What does he mean, and why must a historical crucifixion of recent history that is widely known need to be portrayed at all? These are questions that are not friendly to an HJ position.

Solo

I am baffled by the logic here. If the crucifixion was purely mythical (or removed into the mists of pre-history) where would it have had any bearing on the contemporary situation of the Galatians vis-a-vis the requirements of the law ? Whereas, if you manage to admit the possibility, that the crucifixion was real and recent and (in Paul's mind) inaugurating the earth's last days, the cross' overarching and immediate symbolism (the end of earthly suffering in separation from God) , comes quickly into relief.

Paul and his fellow psychos believed that the world was coming to an end because they suffered through depressive, "annihilation" psychoses. They animated the beliefs in the impending judgment for small communities of believers who were either spooked or had their own vested psychic interests in the demise of the world.

Jiri

spamandham

I'm not trying to argue that Paul viewed the crucifixion as mythical, though he might have, nor am I trying to argue that there was contention among Christians as to the fact of the crucifixion, though that's possible too. Paul was either a lunatic or a con man (or both) from my perspective so it's really difficult to tell what he actually believed.

The point being made is the portrayal itself. The fact that the crucifixion was portrayed in what seems to be some kind of performance (before their very eyes), rather than say, recalled, suggests to me that it is not an event contemporary to Paul. In the modern era, it is rare to find such religious performances depicting contemporary events, and so I'm guessing the same holds in ancient times as well.

Solo

I think most exegets of Galatians would agree that the verb that Paul uses for 'portray' (prographo), is not intended to suggest a play, or play-acting, but Paul's own previous handwriting (or lecture). What Paul is saying is 'this has been clearly spelled out for you', or 'written up for anyone who can read'.

Jiri

ApostateAbe

That would make sense. Maybe it does not refer to Paul's previous writing, but it is referring to the spoken reputation of the crucifixion.

spamandham

Whether it's a play, a previous letter, a sermon, a powerpoint presentation....or whatever, the specific method of portraying this information is mostly irrelevant. That fact that it required portrayal is the point.