Amaleq13

Thanks, Joe. I don't recall who I read that called this reference into question but it always stuck with me as odd.

No. I don't think it is specific enough to support a specific method. The phrase does suggest to me an execution (somehow beneficial to others) and/or a willing sacrifice of one's life.

Jeffrey Gibson

In preparation for an article on the background of Paul's use of this phrase that was eventually published as "Paul's "Dying Formula": Prolegomena to an Understanding of its Import and Significance" in Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology (or via: amazon.co.uk) (available at Google Books here) I searched the corpus of pre -2nd century CE Greek literature available on the TLG D disk using the various forms of the vocabulary Paul (I did not search the epigraphical and papyrilogical data outside of that which appears in the TLG D Disk, let alone the corpus of Latin literary works or the Latin inscriptional evidence).

Leaving out (as possibly chronologically vastly post Pauline) the instances in the Scholia in which examples of, or appeals to, the "dying formula" appear (i.e., Scholia in Aeschinem 2.8.2; Scholia in Aeschylum Th.17, Th.17b, Th.17.5, Th.477-479; Scholia in Euripidem sch Alc. 648, Alc. 717, Alc.724, Ph. 902, Ph. 940.2; Scholia in Homerum, Scholia in Iliadem 22.71-3.7; Scholia in Platonem Lg. 865b.6) and the two instances in the Anonymi in Aristotelis Artem Rhetoricam Commentarium (18.12, 45.34), I found that equivalents to Paul's "dying formula" occur in this corpus at least 111 times.

The tally is as follows:

at least once in Homer (Iliad 15.495-498 [cf.12.242-245], twice in Tyrtaeus (fr. 10.1-2, fr 12.22-34), once in Callinus (fr. 1.5-20), eight times in Isocrates (To Philip 135, [cf. 55,]; Against Lochites 20; Archidamus 93-94, 107; Panergyrics 75, 77, 83, 94-95 [cf. 62]; Panathenicus 185-186), at least twenty seven times in Euripides (Alcestis 18, 175, 280-300, 434 [cf. 472], 524, 620, 645-652, 682, 690, 698-705, 710, 1002; Helen 750; Heraclidae 500-510, 532, 545, 550; Hercules 578-582; The Phonecian Women 914, 969, 997-1018, 1054-1055, 1090; The Trojan Women 386-387; Erectheus Fr. 79.38f (360.32-42); Phrixis Fr.1-2+4.18; Iphigenia at Aulis 1543-1560), at least once in the various epitaphs written by Simonides (Lyrica Graeca 14. 129 [cf. 14.127, 129, 130]); once in Pindar (Fragment Dith. 78), once in Xenophon (On Hunting 1.14), at least three times in Plato (The Symposium 179.b [cf. 207.b]; 208.d; Menexenus 237a [cf. 243b, 246a]); four times in Lysias (Funeral Oration 68; Against Eratosthenes 78; On the Confiscation of the Property of the Brother of Nicias 68-69; Fragment 345.4 [Against Theozotides]), twice in Isaeus (On the Estate of Dicaeogenes 42, 46), four times in Demothsenes (Against Leptines 82; Funeral Speech 29; On the Crown 289 [cf. 204-205]; Against Aristogetion II.23), six times in Lycurgus (Against Leocrates 47-50, 82, 86, 88, 103-104, 107); three times in Hyperides (Demosthenes frg. 7.30; Funeral Oration 24-25, 35), twice in Aristotle (Nichomachean Ethics 1169a[line19]; 1169a[line 25]), once in an epitaph written by Mnasaclas of Sicyon (Greek Anthology 7.242), twice in Polybius (Histories 6.24.9; 15.10); twice in Dionysius Harlicanansus (Antiquities of Rome 11.57.2; Rh. 6:4), twice in Diodorus of Sicily (8.12.8; 21.6.2 [cf. 15.52.4]); three times in Philo (On Husbandry 156.3; Abraham 179; The Special Laws 4.15 [cf. On the Change of Names 40]), at least eleven times in Plutarch (Corialanus 6:1-2; Aristedes 21.4; Cato Minor 5.2; Otho 15.4; Brutus 40.8-9; Phocion 17.3; Pericles 8.6; Tiberius Gracchus 9.5; Sayings of the Spartans 219.B, 222.A, 225.A, 238A; On the Fame of the Athenians 349.7), twice in 1 Macc. (1.50; 6:44), twice in 2 Macc. (7:37; 8:21); at least five times in 4 Macc (6:22, 27, 30; 11:14; 13:9), five times in Josephus (AJ 12.281, AJ 13.1, 6, 198-199; Ap 2.218-219), twice in Epictetus (Dis. 2.7.3; 4.1.154), three times in Cassius Dio (14.57.4; 53.8.3; 53.9.4), once in Polyaenus (Excerpta 14.8), once in Pseud Apollodorus (Library 1.106), once in Lucian (Cont. 10.17 [cf. My Native Land 12]); once in Hermogenes Tarsensis (Progymnasmata 7.44), once in (Pseudo) Aelius Aristides (Panathenaic Oration 132 [191D, 87]), once in Pausanius (Description of Greece 9.17.1), and several times in various inscriptions on Greek sepulchers (Epigrammata sepulcralia 19, 20, 406; Greek Anthology 7.245).

As to what the aim of this "dying for" was, I discovered that apart from a few instances in which those who are said to have died for others do so solely with the thought of what such a death might do for their reputation as defenders of the polis or patride, those described as dying for others are otherwise always concerned with one thing: protecting and saving from danger that which has fostered them. This may be one's parents or one's spouse, but more often than not it is one's polis or one's patride. More importantly, never, notably, does the one to whom the dying formula is applied die for or on behalf of an adversary or an enemy. The death for others, especially the "noble death", is always a death undertaken in an attempt to rescue or defend one's own.

In virtually all instances of the theme the result is not only the "salvation" of the person or thing for which the deceased has died but, notably, the eventual, if not the immediate, defeat or destruction of the persons or the powers that have caused the deceased's demise or which threaten that for which the deceased dies. For example, according to Mnascales, the effect of the deaths of those Greeks who died for their patride at Thermopylae was not only what delivered Hellas from "the tearful yoke" that the Persians had "rested on her neck" but was also that which paved the way for the victory of Greece over Xerxes and his forces. Diodorus of Sicily, following Durus, Diodore, and Cassius Dio, notes that the Roman consul Decius' devoting himself to death for the sake of his fellow Romans brought about the slaughter of one hundred thousand of Rome's enemies. In Iphigenia at Aulis, Iphigenia's willingness to give her "body ... to be sacrified for [her] country's sake and all of Hellas-land" is what gives the Greeks "delivery victorious" over the Trojans and "saves Hellas" from the threat they represent to the freedom of her countrymen. And the author of 2 Maccabees records that the deaths of the seven brothers who, during the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, gave up "body and life for the laws of [their] fathers", brought about not only "an end of the wrath of the Almighty which has justly fallen on our whole nation" but accelerated the Jewish victory over Antiochus and his armies (2 Macc 7:1-45).

In several instances of the use of the formula -- in Euripedes, Phoenecian Women 1015-18; Iphigenia at Aulis 1379ff; Heracleidae 500-558; Demosthens, Funeral Speech 29, Diodorus 17.15.2; Aelius Aristides, Panathenaic Oration, 132 [191D, 87]; Pausanius 9.7.1, what those who die are doing at the time of their death is offering themselves up upon an altar of a god in accordance with a divine demand for the sacrifice of a life. In some others, namely, those that appear in 4 Maccabees, those who die are having to endure tortures and persecutions designed to break them of their pistis to that which they hold dear. In another, in Lycurgus, Against Leocrates 85-87, the one who dies, namely Cordrus, is carrying out a ruse that he knows will result in his being killed by those among his city's foes who, knowing that the dearth of Cordrus would bring upon then divine wrath, were trying to avoid doing him any harm.

But in the majority of cases the one who dies has been plunging himself headlong and voluntarily into deadly and death-dealing combat, waging war against the enemy on the ramparts or in the siege or on the open battlefield. Space prevents a full listing of such cases.

This is clear in, e.g., Hyperides' account of Leosthenses and his men, who as Hyperides proclaims, "gave their lives for the freedom of the Greeks, convinced that the surest proof of their desire to guarantee the liberty of Greece was to die in battle for her":

[10] For Leosthenes perceived that the whole of Greece was humiliated and . . . cowed, corrupted by men who were accepting bribes from Philip and Alexander against their native countries. He realized that our city stood in need of a commander, and Greece herself of a city, able to assume the leadership, and he gave himself to his country and the city to the Greeks, in the cause of freedom. [11] After raising a mercenary force he took command of the citizen army and defeated the first opponents of Greek freedom, the Boeotians, Macedonians and Euboeans, together with their other allies, in battle in Boeotia. [12] Thence he advanced to Pylae and occupied the pass through which, in bygone days aswell, barbarians marched against the Greeks. He thus prevented the inroad of Antipater into Greece, and overtaking him in that vicinity, defeated him in battle and shut him into Lamia, which he then besieged. [13] The Thessalians, Phocians, Aetolians, and all the other peoples of the region, he made his allies, bringing under his control, by their own consent, the men whom Philip and Alexander gloried in controlling against their wish. The circumstances subject to his will he mastered, but fate he could not overpower.

The context in which was the expression X died for Y is employed is occasionally when philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle and, later, Epictetus turn their attention to the topics of the nature of love or true friendship.

It is also used when Hellenistic historians are intent to give descriptions of such things as the motive behind a city's or an army's resolve not to surrender to a conquering foe, the customs of the Spartans, orders of command of the Roman army and the qualities sought in candidates for certain military offices, or the complaints that the plebeians of Rome in the time of Coriolanus were wont to utter against their treatment by the rich.

But in the overwhelming majority of cases, the formula is found employed either

a. within, and as an integral part of, the celebration of the civic cult;

b. as a topos in symbouleutic speeches – speeches given in or addressed to an ekklesia or council when the issue under debate is
the wisdom of going to war;

c. as a topos in forensic speeches given, or written to be delivered, in the law court;

d. in testamentary addresses and epitaphioi;

e. in the military commander's address to his troops who either are about to go into battle or, already there, are on the brink of
suffering a catastrophic defeat;

f. in the battlefield declarations of intent made by individual soldiers to their superiors or their comrades in arms; or

g. in inscriptions on public monuments and war memorials erected to commemorate and honour those "fallen" in battle.

I also discovered that the intended purpose or effect of using the "dying formula" -- that is to say, what it was, given the evidence at our disposal, that cult leaders, politicians, testamentarians, war memorial euolgists, hard pressed battlefield commanders, beleaguered soldiers, and epitaphographers were "up to" when they employed the formula -- was this:

To inculcate, confirm, or reinforce the values that stood at the very heart of Greco Roman imperial ideology -- values that were subscribed to by Jews and Greeks and by those whom Paul called "the rulers of this age" as essential for maintaining "peace and security", namely, that the warrior is the ideal citizen, that war is "glorious", that violence is a constructive force in the building of civilization, and that "salvation" from that which threatens to harm or destroy a valued way of life is ultimately achieved only through the use of brute force.

For my conclusions as to what Paul was up to when he used the formula of Jesus, see the article.

Hope this helps.

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith

I do not think we have to presume a tradition; I think we have one in the OT. The bit about Israel killing the prophets echoes, I think, the lament of Elijah in 1 Kings 19.10. That Paul knows this verse is clear from his quotation of it in Romans 11.3-4.

Ben.

aa5874

I think you have isolated a passage that gives a clear indication that the letter-writer called "Paul" of 1 Corinthians was aware of gMatthew 28.18-20.

The letter-writer, "Paul", strangely claimed his Jesus told him not to baptise but this claim contradicts the Jesus of gMatthew.

Another passage that also indicates that the letter-writer "Paul" was aware, before-hand, of information about the supposed crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus can be found in 1 Corinthians 15.3-4.

And further, in order for the letter-writer "Paul" to have been converted miraculously by Jesus, the letter-writer must have known in advance from some external source that Jesus was crucified, buried, resurrected and ascended to the right hand of God.

The letter-writer most likely used the Synoptics or the "memoirs of the apostles", as stated by Justin Martyr, for his so-called fabricated revelations.

It is extremely unlikely that the letter writer called "Paul" was the first to mention the crucifixion.

Amaleq13

Thanks, Jeffrey. Very informative and relevant. :thumbs:

Jeffrey Gibson

Glad you found it so.

In addition to what you find in what I sent along, you should be sure to place Paul's use of the dying formula within his pronouncement that to the "wis of this world" the claim that Jesus' death for enemies is "foolishness" and folly" and against the view stated in contemporary Stoicism that the only causes for which the giving up or making exit of one's life were "reasonable", and therefore in conformity with "wisdom", were the good of one's country or one's friends or to escape intolerable pain, mutilation, or incurable disease. Dying for one's enemies was the height of irrationality. Cf. Diogenes Laertius, 7.130 (Zeno)

Jeffrey

Loomis

I think you are close, but no cigar. I think you are overlooking something big. :wave:

I think the original story of Jesus’ execution was based on the Jewish law in Deuteronomy 21:22:

If a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and you hang him on a tree;

Notice that it is a two-step process. The criminal is killed (perhaps stoned to death), and then his dead body is hung on a tree.

This is what’s going on in Acts 5:30:

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, and hanged on a tree.

See?

1. Kill him.
2. Hang the body on a tree.

This is consistent with the central theme of the life of Jesus, which is irony. The idea was that the Jewish messiah arrived; but the Jews didn’t recognize him, and (ironically) they killed him as a common criminal under their own laws.

If the Romans killed Jesus then this sense of irony would be lost.

I agree with you that the shit about the Romans and the "crucifixion" was added later. It looks to me like the stories about Jesus’ execution tend to fall into two categories:

1. The traditional story where Jesus is crucified by the Romans.
2. The earlier story where Jesus is killed by the Jews, and then hung on a tree by the Jews.

You might have trouble accepting my reconstruction if you think Jesus actually existed.

Or perhaps for personal reasons.

But if you consider the possibility that he is pure fiction then it all makes sense.

the_cave

I would like to point out that Crossan also links the passion narrative (which forms a part of his Cross Gospel) to this passage in Deuteronomy.

I would also like to point out that Delbert Burkett finds a "Sanhedrin trial" source in his analysis of Mark, and that Vorkosigan (following Ludemann) has displayed the parallels between the Sanhedrin trial and the trial before Pilate in his Commentary.

On the contrary, it makes sense even if he did exist.

Solo

I do not see any such thing. Both passages mention baptism. The vast majority of scholars agree that 1 Corinthians and Paul predates gMatthew.

Paul may seem to you to be claiming strange things, but to me they are not strange at all. You would have to find another way to claim is textually dependent on gMatthew to make it clear to most people on this board.

But I tell you what.....you want a mythical origin of Jesus Christ ? Here is how I would go about it:

Paul's Jesus Christ and the later gospel material relates to internal "events" of communities organized around beliefs that the world is at an end or ushering into a new age of God's rule of earth. The psychic events reported by members of the communities as "witness" to the apocalypse (from Gr. 'apokaluptein' to uncover) were discussed among members and interpreted by the intellectual leaders for the community.

The analysis of the text for cognitive content shows a historical form of socialization of a mental challenge that today is commonly diagnosed as bi-polar disorder (manic-depression), with related issues of paranoia, anxiety, etc. The original purpose of this socialization was to seek relief from the often debilitating symptoms of the condition, by projecting the community suffering and individual paranoid self-glorification onto a Saviour figure (the faith model). An alternative to this therapy was offered by gnostic strands, which deployed a cognitive form in which adepts sought to calm themselves by contemplating different facets of their experience and the paradoxical nature of reality.

Paul invented the cross to remind the maniacs at Corinth that there was a downside to their faboulous trips to heaven (euphoric mania) and that they are missing on the redemptive value of suffering (the depressive side), in which he believed. It was on this central idea that there is a reason for human suffering - that God accounts for it, and would go even as far as sacrifice his own son - that Christianity was built and spread as a religion for all who needed that sort of reassurance.

Jiri

aa5874

This agreement by scholars is completely flawed. There is no basis for such an agreement.

• "Paul" is an unknown character that surfaced in the late 2nd century.
• Paul's history as written in Acts is bogus.
• The information in the epistles about Jesus could not have been revealed to "Paul".
• The information about the crucifixion, death and resurrection was already available in the "memoirs of the apostles" as written by Justin Martyr.
• No early christian writer ever claimed that "Paul" wrote any epistle before the Synoptics.
• If Jesus actually lived and was crucified, "Paul" revelations would be meaningless.

"Paul" was manufactured, he never really said anything.

"Paul's" bogus miraculous conversion is directly dependent on the Synoptics. The manufacturer of "Paul" must have already read or heard that Jesus had ascended to heaven and had the power to save.

This is just pure speculation based on your imagination.

You have no evidence whatsoever that "Paul" wrote anything. All you have are epistles with "Paul" name attached to them.

And if these epistles were written before the Synoptics, still none of the authors of the Synoptics mentioned anyone named Saul/Paul anywhere in their Gospels.

Total BS. You have diagnosed an unknown patient from letters which may have been forged. This is quackery.

Your are just re-inventing "Paul" from your imagination.

Your approach to the mythical Jesus is just baseless non-sense.