Dreadnought

Pardon the pun. This is a challenge to the mythicists to explain why Paul talks about a crucified christ. The historicists have a pedestrian answer for this one: "Because that's what happened". But if we accept for now that Paul isn't thinking of an actual man and an actual story then where does he get this idea from?

If this has been the main topic of a previous thread then feel free to link to it.

chrisrkline

Both camps have places where pedestrian answers are used and where the other side is forced to do some, at times ad hoc, explaining.

For example, the answer to the "problem of silence" is simple: the early Christian's did not know about a historical Jesus. It is the HJ camp that has to do all of the ad hoc work.

Yes, the obvious, simple answer to the crucifixion reference is that someone named Jesus was crucified. But maybe, Paul needed his Christ to "die" as a suffering servant. So he picked a particularly brutal, common, means of execution for his savior.

aa5874

Mythological figures can do anything. If Paul imagined that his Jesus was crucified then he just has to write that Jesus was crucified. There are many many anecdotes about spiritual beings doing almost every incredible act imaginable. If you read about the Jesus of Valentinus, in Against Heresies, you will probably begin to understand the many varied and complex ideas that were being spread at least in the 2nd century.

Dreadnought

The actual question may have escaped your notice. I was asking "why" not how.

Dreadnought

Perhaps he did need that, but there's still a large "why" that is unanswered. In the case of the HJ the need to have Jesus death explained as a sacrifice leads to the usual jazz about atonement for sin and what not. As it happens I find the atonement idea ridiculous because why would a god need to kill his son/himself to make himself forgive? It reeks of a post-hoc explanation for the untimely death of the founder figure. The same goes for resurrection, which is an "oh, but he didn't really die, he conquered death, came back and then went to heaven"-handwave.

Chris Weimer

One that has never before been practiced in the heavens? One that represented Roman imperialism? Why?

Chris Weimer

Sometimes a cross is just a cross.

Especially the earlier back you go, you realize that the conquering death wasn't even physical, but spiritual.

"Uh, where'd your messiah go?"

"Oh, he went up into the kingdom of God in the skies."

"I didn't see him."

"Oh no? It was spiritual. Every now and then he'll come back and 'visit' you."

chrisrkline

Well, you can read the MJers to see some reasons. It is not hard to imagine that some Jewish cult would develop the idea of a suffering servant. In fact it was not at all uncommon by the first century.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Dreadnought,

This is an excellent question. My best guess is that we are getting a wrong translation.Look at the word for crucified "εσταυρωται" that Paul uses in Galations 6:14

13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Ignatius uses the same term "εσταυρωται" in his Epistle to the Romans:

For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die for the sake of Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me that loves anything;

In both these contexts the word crucified is extraordinarily awkward. What does Paul mean when he says that the world has crucified me and I have crucified the world. Is he making light of Christ's crucifixion by comparing himself to Christ? What does Ignatius mean when he says "My love has been crucified"? That just sounds bizarre.

There are other meanings of the word "εσταυρωται" besides crucified. It can also, for example, mean "to extinguish (subdue) passion or selfishness" In both of these contexts, it makes much more sense to translate "εσταυρωται" as "extinguished" in this sense.

We may translate the Paul passage this way:
13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been extinguished to me, and I to the world.

Likewise the sentence in Ignatius' Epistle:

For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die for the sake of Christ. My love has been extinguished, and there is no fire in me that loves anything;

It is easy to see that the epistle of Ignatius, when translated this way actually makes no reference to the crucifixion of Christ.

The Greek term for cross that Paul uses is "σταυρω". This also does not need to be translated as "cross." It may mean "a stake or post, exposure to death, or self-denial" In this context, it seems that the last term is most appropriate:

"For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the self-denial of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been extinguished to me, and I to the world."

When translated this way, the passage a) makes more sense and b) shows no reference to the crucifixion of person.

Likewise 1 Corinthians 1:23

but we preach Christ "crucified" may be
but we preach Christ "extinguished"

Likewise Galatians 3:1: You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified extinguished?

and
1: Corinthians 1.17:
Christ didn't send me to baptize. Instead, he sent me to spread the Good News. I didn't use intellectual arguments. That would have made the cross self-denial of Christ lose its meaning.


Galatians 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified [extinguished] the flesh with its passions and desires.

If we make these substitutions in the four or five other places where the word "cross" or "crucified" is translated in the Epistles of Paul, we see that Paul never mentioned a crucified Christ or Christ on the Cross at all. He, rather, talked about a self-denying and extinguished Christ.

Remember that Paul thought of Christ as a spirit that could and did exist inside of people. That idea that such a spirit of Christ could be extinguished (crucified) inside a person was obvious. Obvious too was the idea of the self denial (cross) of that same spirit, Christ.

After the stories of a crucified half-human Jesus Christ were circulated through the Gospels, the words were taken as referring to a literal "crucifixion" and a literal "cross." rather than there original meaning of an "extinguishing" and a "self-denial".

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Chris Weimer

But why a cross?