aa5874

The name "Paul" surfaced for the first time in "Against Heresies" in the last quarter of the 2nd century.

The epistles to the seven Churches by "Paul" were all introduced for the first time in "Against Heresies" in the last quarter of the 2nd century.

The Acts of the Apostles was also mentioned for the first time in Against Heresies in the last quarter of the 2nd century.

And Justin Martyr writing around the middle of the 2nd century NEVER mentioned "Paul", the epistles to the seven Churches or Acts of the Apostles.

Justin Martyr mentioned only the memoirs of the apostles called the Gospels and the Apocalypse of John.

It would appear that the memoirs of the apostles called Gospels predated "Paul", the epistle to the seven Churches and Acts of the Apostles.

The authors of the epistles to the seven Churches and Acts of the Apostles are likely to have used the memoirs of the apostles called Gospels and the revelation of John to fabricate their propaganda.

The so-called revelations of "Paul" most likely are bogus, just like his miraculous conversion.

JoeWallack

JW:
A very good question. The dominant theme of 1 Thessalonians is the Timing of Jesus' supposed return. The Epsitle is General in nature and there is no obvious place to specifically mention that Jesus was crucified. The best potential spot would be:

Paul has a reason here not to mention crucifixion because the comparison is better if he uses the general "killed". This is all why I merely said "suggests".

On the other hand, for an Assertian which is clearly one of Paul's most important based on all his writings, I find it reMarkable that he would not mention it in an entire Epistle. I think it's Paulsible that Paul started out with the General Assertian and policy statement that Jesus endured Affliction and gradually fleshed out the how. An important related Assertian was that Jesus was shamefully treated. This was than used as instruction for Believers that they should likewise be shamefully treated. "Mark" than develops the Ironic contrast that Jesus and Believers were/will be shamefully treated but if you are ashamed of Jesus in life (think Peter) he will be ashamed of you at Judgment.

I suspect that "crucifixion" was a later and largely figurative Assertian by Paul based on "Revelation" and not historical witness. Jesus may have been hung and that probably would have been all Paul needed to assert "crucified." I think Helms gives the most likely historical picture in The Bible Against Itself that Paul is going to the Gentiles who have no historical witness to Jesus and making non-historical Assertians. James and Peter are cleaning up after Paul sending historical witness to Paul's audience and convincing them that Paul's Assertians are not historical. Paul has reason than to avoid making non-historical Assertians such as crucifixion if it is not needed for his specific message because than there is nothing for historical witness to contradict. All of this is supported by no mention of crucifixion in the first, or at least earlier, Epistles.


JW:
"Require"? As Harold Ramis said in the classic "Stripes" when asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony, "Convicted? No!." As far as "suggest" you need to distinguish between what Paul might have meant and what a normal person might have meant. Also, you apparently want to connect "sacrificial death" and crucifixion. In general a tortuous death having sacrificial significance is largely a Pagan idea and one that Judaism has an abhorrent reaction to.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

IIRC, scholars aren't sure what is intended by the reference to the killing of "the prophets". Prophets are certainly rejected by their fellow Jews in both tradition and Scripture but not "killed". At the least, that makes it difficult to even speculate what Paul might have had in mind.

Is it reasonable to suspect that the author of the passage might have been concerned about confusing his blame of the Jews with a non-Jewish means of execution? Would his readers have recognized that the Jews would not have killed Jesus by crucifying him?

What other sort of death would be so described (ie "for us")?

I have no idea what this is supposed to imply.

No, I'm just trying to determine what sort of death you think would qualify for that description.

andrewcriddle

The story of the killing of Isaiah by Manasseh found in the Ascension of Isaiah http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ascension.html seems to be based on Jewish tradition (See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=263&letter=I . )There may be other examples.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

4 Baruch (the Paraleipomena), possibly from around the same time as the Ascension of Isaiah, records the stoning of Jeremiah.

Ben.

Solo

I think it's quite possible that Paul developped the cross symbology later. It seems in 1 Thess (addressed to his church of the "afflicted saints") he was not quite there. The thing to notice about this earliest letter of Paul is that there is no polemic against false teachers or perverters of the gospel. But look at the way Paul introduces the cross paradox later, in 1 Cr:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel–not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
1 Cr 1:17-19

So, the cross first appears in a polemic with the baptizers. To my thinking, if Paul had simply invented it he could not have argued about its meaning with the followers of other preacher(s) (or those in his own flock coming under his (their) influence). So, Paul begins by pointing to the cross as the historical shame of the other party/parties. He had a revelation: not of the cross but the spiritual meaning of the cross which he goes on to expand on in the passage. That's his theological cudgel with which to beat up on the outrageousness of people like Cephas who proclaim Jesus while living it up down here.

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
Oh this one Paul has Scriptural support for:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Nehemiah_9

If you've been a counter-missionary long enough you'll get this thrown in your face. You can also mine a decent list from Jewish writings, Saul, Jezebel, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah.

This is a basic difference between Judaism and Christianity. Judaism is Critical of it's history which allows it to Improve and reduce criticism of others. Christianity has Idealized it's history which reduces improvement and promotes criticism of others.

JW:
Would his readers have recognized that the Jews would not have killed Jesus period since the Romans had the authority? Your question has a bigger potential problem than solution so it is not sufficiently interesting to me to pursue.

JW:
"died for us" has a potentially broad range of meaning. Let's try to get to the point though. Aren't you trying to argue that "died for us" is support for crucifixion as the specific type of death?

JW:
My OP question is was Paul the first to assert that Jesus was crucified. My primary emphasis is History. What Paul likely meant is secondary. My point is we can not treat Paul as a normal person as far as the value of his "testimony".

JW:
No specific Type. Just dying during the Ministry would be enough I think. Even tripping and being impaled on a stauros would qualify.




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.

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source

the_cave

Are you really trying to make the argument that every reference in the epistles to "crucifixion" is a 2nd century addition?

If that's the case, then when do you date the Passion Narrative?

the_cave

But look at the details of Epictetus' biography; it would place him some time after Paul, not before--even for those who would place Paul's activity somewhat later than the traditional dates. So this saying would seem to be contemporary with Paul at best, but certainly no earlier. So who is to say that Epictetus was not responding to early Christian (or proto-Christian) teachings?

Besides, how do we know Epictetus was speaking metaphorically here, rather than hyperbolically?

Amaleq13

So, from these two post-Paul stories we presume a tradition that pre-dates Paul? Or do we wonder if the passage post-dates Paul? :angel:

In English, Paul's rather generic and plural reference to the killing of the prophets makes it almost sound like it was standard practice and common knowledge. Like you would expect to find it throughout Scripture. Is it different in the original language?

ETA: I posted this before reading Joe's response so nevermind.