Amaleq13

Certainly the Galatians didn't really see Jesus Christ crucified and, IIUC, the above is not a terribly accurate translation. Young's Literal Translation gives the following:

"O thoughtless Galatians, who did bewitch you, not to obey the truth -- before whose eyes Jesus Christ was described before among you crucified?"

In other words, having the death of Christ described is equated with having actually witnessed the event.

That doesn't strike me as the sort of thing a person says about a historical event but it does seem like the sort of double-talk one might use in referring to mystical knowledge.

jjramsey

I think it is a stretch to conclude from this that Paul was talking about mystical knowledge. A simpler explanation is that it was a rhetorical flourish.

(It might also be that many of the Galatian Christians were Jewish and had seen the crucifixion when they were in Jerusalem. That might explain why they were taken with the Judaizers. OTOH, IIRC, I think Paul implies that they were uncircumcised, which doesn't square with that idea. Anyway, that is just offhand speculation on my part, so I wouldn't take it too seriously.)

Clivedurdle

Any religion purporting to be worth anything was in huge competition with all the other religions. One of the quality marks of a religion was the ability of its followers to do signs and wonders.

The very few comments of Paul about signs and wonders is in fact problematic.

I would expect something equivalent to sitting in volcanic fumes and spouting oracles that the Emperors listen to.....

In fact, it seems to be only with Constantine and his winning a battle that xian signs and wonders get serious!

Which actually strengthens the idea that Gospels - Acts are stories - because the xians could not deliver the goods in terms of signs and wonders and it was all imagination and spiritual realms!

jjramsey

Not quite. The various polytheisms didn't have that much trouble living side-by-side. Judaism and Christianity were unusual in their exclusivity.

Not really. The rank-and-file followers would certainly not be expected to do such things.

Um, I think all the religions got their miracles from a mix of hearsay, legends, and misreadings of natural events, such as the placebo effect.

Clivedurdle

I wrote "purporting to be worth anything"

Isn't Xianity about God so loved the WORLD etc?

It wanted to play in the Premiere League - that meant against Apollo, Diana etc.

That means signs and wonders.

It didn't show on the religious correspondent's radar for a long time, and then only for minor stuff like affecting temple trade.

But where are the visions, the omens? They are not there! And I am not expecting the rank and file to do anything, but I am expecting the equivalent to the claims of the main Roman and Greek Temples (technically not pagan!)

NOGO

Totally correct. I should have said that Paul also bases his teaching on revelation from the risen Jesus.

But my point was that he never, not once, says that anything came from the Jesus that walked the earth.

NOGO

The word crucified in all of these verses is a mistranslation. The word is more like impaled. Paul relates this to a verse in scriptures about criminals haning from a tree. See Ga 3:13

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:"

Really?
A human socrifice for forgiveness of sin. Ok.
Jesus was not the first man who died by crucifixion or impalement.
Then what?

jjramsey

And the "Premiere League" to which you referred was doing about as badly as the Christians in this regard. Take a read of Jennifer Michael Hecht's Doubt. Even then, there was cynicism about the miracle stories of the pagans.

Oh, the old canard that "stauroo" wasn't used to refer to crucifixion. Care to tell me why this "mistranslation" was also done when translating The Life of Flavius Josephus 420?

jakejonesiv

The traditional view, that Jesus' alleged crucifixion was on a "T"
shaped cross, whether the cross bar was at the top, or toward the
middle is not necessarily correct. Josephus used the same words
(ie.xylon or starous) but that does not establish what that word
meant. The words do not tell us how the execution on a stake or cross
was carried out. Lachish relief of Sennacherib from Nineveh depict
execution by impalement, forcing the body of the victims down onto
pointed stakes, often through the anus. This seems to be the earliest
meaning of the term stauros, an upright pointy stake.
http://tinyurl.com/32uwd

“Thence came that most debased of prayers, in which Maccenas does not refuse to suffer weakness, deformity, and as a climax the pain of crucifixion provided only that he may prolong the breath of life amid these sufferings: Fashion me with a palsied hand, Weak of foot, and a cripple; Build upon me a crook-backed hump Shake my teeth till they rattle All is well, if my life remains. Save, oh, save it, I pray you, Though I sit on the piercing cross!.......
Is it worth while to weigh down upon one's own wound, and hang impaled upon a gibbet,�
Seneca's Epistles Volume III , Epistle CI.

For what its worth, Lucian's On the death of Peregrinus says
"ton en te Palaistine anaskolopisthenta".

Jake Jones

JoeWallack

JW:
Because the Impossible is Impossible. But I think you already know this. Serious Bible scholarship needs to start with The Assumption:

The Impossible is Impossible

The most Direct comparison relating to Paul would be:

1) Paul based on Paul (Epistles (unForged))

vs.

2) Paul based on Not Paul (Acts)

We observe 1) doesn't claim much Impossible Compared to 2). For someone who starts with the correct Assumption that:

The Impossible is Impossible

we have an Expected Observation. The Historical Paul would not have Witnessed the Impossible Compared to The Fictional Paul. For someone though who doesn't start with the correct Assumption this Observation Should be a Problem. But who really cares what they think anyway.

Regarding the Original Gospel "Mark" in the:

Mark's View Of The Disciples

Thread I've laid out my take on why "Mark" is obsessed with The Impossible:

History of Jesus, The Disciples and "Mark":

1) Historical Jesus does the Possible and Dies.

2) Historical Disciples Teach about Possible Jesus and Die.

3) All who knew Possible Jesus Die.

4) "Mark" has available evidence of Possible Jesus, Q, but ignores it and writes Gospel that anyone who Taught Possible Jesus, specifically The Disciples, didn't Know/Understand Impossible Jesus.

By The Way Jake, Fowler's book is ReMarkable.



Joseph

"You've been Wikied!" - JoeWallack

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