Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by iskander »

FelixAndor wrote:Some of this discussion seems infantile.

The whole point of the Bible, in my reading anyway, is to open eyes to perception of a spiritual world--aka Wisdom.

If one wishes to subject the Bible to "scientific" analysis, then there are easier points to attack, such as the raising of Lazarus after his corpse had begun stinking.

Not to mention all the other bodies raised up out of their graves after the crucifixion.

But I think the miracles, the stories outside our experience, are gateways to another way of seeing, and one at least equally as valid.

Keep in mind, scientists now assert that most of the matter and energy of the universe is totally invisible--undetectable even by the most powerful laboratories on Earth like CERN.

Is that substitution of man's postulate (to plug a gap or "error" in cosmological equations) a better way to think than the spiritual knowledge of thousands of years?

Not for me.
:)

You must learn gematria to appreciate their wisdom; being an assistant of lieutenant Columbo may help .
Re: Two Powers Tradition and the question of historicity
by iskander » Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:33 pm
He is an academic!!!, you must learn gematria to appreciate his wisdom

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3035&p=67528&hilit=gematria#p67528
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

They Were Just Following Religious orders

Post by JoeWallack »

The Ballad of John

JW:
Chronology of Pauline/Fake Pauline Epistles:

Pauline epistles

Chronology of Pauline Epistles Mention of Crucifixion? Emphasis of Epistle Context of Crucifixion Commentary
1 Thessalonians No Belief in Jesus' resurrection N/A It is generally thought that orthodox Christianity started with a belief in Jesus' supposed resurrection and then moved backwards (crucifixion, passion, teaching & healing ministry, birth, pre-existence).
The chronology of the christian bible is misleading in general, because the Epistles follow the Gospels implying they are commentary on them even though the Epistles were written long before the Gospels and it is probably the other way around (Gospels are commentary on the Epistles), and specifically the likely earliest Epistle, 1 Thessalonians, is not listed first, giving the impression that crucifixion mentioned in the many epistles before it was extremely well known but not mentioned in 1 Thessalonians.
The lack of mention of crucifixion in the first Epistle coordinates with the observation that outside of the Christian Bible the only identified crucified in early first century Israel was Arya Stark (no one).
Galatians Yes Salvation is based on faith Mostly Figurative Invoking of "crucifixion" as follows:
"I have been crucified with Christ"
"O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?"
"then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away."
"And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof."
"save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world."
The references to crucifixion are mostly figurative. There is implication that the figurative uses refer to a literal crucifixion or at least a literal hanging ("for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:").
The order though suggests a possible overall figurative use of crucifixion:

1 Thessalonians = no mention of crucifixion.

Galatians =
  • Paul's source is divine and not human.

    First use of "crucified" is figurative.

    Jesus is portrayed as crucified before the Galatians.

    Jesus' supposed cross and crucifixion are used as talking points.

It's possible that Jesus was not crucified and no one said he was before Paul. That's why Paul would not have mentioned it in his first Epistle. Paul may have created the assertion as evidenced in his next Epistle, taking a historical hanging, which is exponentially the more likely historical penalty for a Temple disturbance, than crucifixion, and figuratively elevated it to a crucifixion. Note that by Galatians time belief in a supposed Jesus' crucifixion is not an identified important article of faith. It's not until the next Epistle that Paul "preaches Christ crucified".


Joseph

Brexit is All About Making Israel Greater
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by Irish1975 »

It seems that the crucifixion is mentioned only once in Romans, at 6:6:
We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.
Thus, in Romans, Paul shows no interest in the crucifixion as a historical event, but merely as an image for preaching the regeneration of new life in the believer.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:04 am It seems that the crucifixion is mentioned only once in Romans, at 6:6:
We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.
Thus, in Romans, Paul shows no interest in the crucifixion as a historical event, but merely as an image for preaching the regeneration of new life in the believer.
Paul in Romans seems to be interested in the death of Christ as an historical event e.g. Romans 5:6
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
you are correct that it is only once made explicit that that death was by crucifixion.

Andrew Criddle
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by robert j »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:04 am
... in Romans, Paul shows no interest in the crucifixion as a historical event, but merely as an image for preaching the regeneration of new life in the believer.

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:09 pm
Paul in Romans seems to be interested in the death of Christ as an historical event e.g. Romans 5:6
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
When plucked out of context, and with this questionable translation, Romans 5:6 may seem to represent the death of Christ as a recent historical event.

However, when considered in the context of the wider passage in Romans, and when textual variations and translation issues are considered --- as I have below --- I don’t think this problematic verse provides either clear or convincing evidence for a recent death of Jesus in relation to Paul.

Below I have cut-and-pasted a post I wrote in another thread about a year ago, with some minor editing ----

I think interpreting this verse in the wider context of the letter --- specifically with the preceding passages --- reveals the intent of the author. Preceding this verse, the author of Romans reviewed the story of Paul’s Christ for 25 verses, all strictly in terms of the scriptures.

From the promise to Abraham from Genesis, the law given to Moses (as found in various books of the scriptures), a Psalm of David, and the salvific death and resurrection from Isaiah --- the author of Romans presented a portion of the grand sweep of time, in which Paul’s Jesus played the central role, entirely within the realm of the scriptures. No human figure of recent existence is to be found.

At the end of that 25 verse review, in close proximity to the verse in question here, the righteousness of Abraham is brought into current focus --- the righteousness is also “about to be credited, to those believing” ---

Therefore also it was credited to him [i.e. Abraham] as righteousness. Now it was not written on account of him alone that it was credited to him, but also on account of us, to whom it is about to be credited, to those believing on the One having raised Jesus our Lord out from the dead … (Romans 4:22-24)

And how was this righteousness about to be credited to all those believing initially earned? All the author presented at this critical point was a paraphrase of Isaiah 53 ---- presenting the sacrafice of Jesus Christ within the realm of the scriptures, within the realm of scriptural time ---

… who was delivered over for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification. (Romans 4:25)

But the salvific death alone did not justify the sins of anyone. It was only the knowledge of the sacrifice and the faith in that death and resurrection that provided salvation. And it was Paul who recently brought that knowledge, through the scriptures, bringing the opportunity for faith to the Gentiles.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1)

The author of Romans continues to bring the discussion home, leading to the verse in question ---

For while we were still in weakness, still at the opportune time Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6)

ἔτι γὰρ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν.

I have incorporated the second ἔτι (still) from the Greek text into the translation here. I think the intent of the author of Romans was this ---

Jesus may have died a long time ago, and we were still recently weak, but His death was still opportune because it is the faith we now have that provides the salvation.

The Greek text of the SBL and the Nestle-Aland have ἔτι twice (as shown above). The Westcott & Hort also has the second ἔτι, but has εἴ γε (and variants) in place of the first ἔτι.

Of the 25 bibles I checked, none incorporate the second ἔτι (still) in their English translation. Modern bible translators --- even those that generally rely on the Greek NT versions that have the second ἔτι --- seem to resolve the temporal confusion here by just ignoring the second ἔτι.

It seems from the earliest times scribes and interpreters of this verse were confused over the temporal nature of the term ἔτι (still). There are significant textual variations in manuscripts and in early-attestations providing at least 6 variations of the verse, all centering on the term ἔτι. The term ἔτι is found in various combinations in various texts as present or missing in either position, and/or replaced in the first position by different terms.

Greek specialists wrestle with this verse to this day.

With the verse in question here following 25 verses about the back-story of Jesus, including the salvific death, presented entirely in the realm of the scriptures --- as well as the predominance of the scriptural basis of Paul’s system evident throughout the Paulines --- I don’t think this problematic verse provides either clear or convincing evidence for a recent death of Jesus in relation to Paul.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

robert j wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:07 amWhen plucked out of context, and with this questionable translation, Romans 5:6 may seem to represent the death of Christ as a recent historical event.
This is just one indication among many in the Pauline epistles. Each individual piece may well be subject to the kind of deconstructive dismantling that you give this one, but the force of the whole is pretty clear, IMHO, unless much has been interpolated: Paul thinks of Jesus' death as recent.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by robert j »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:50 am
robert j wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:07 amWhen plucked out of context, and with this questionable translation, Romans 5:6 may seem to represent the death of Christ as a recent historical event.
This is just one indication among many in the Pauline epistles. Each individual piece may well be subject to the kind of deconstructive dismantling that you give this one, but the force of the whole is pretty clear, IMHO, unless much has been interpolated: Paul thinks of Jesus' death as recent.
What you call “deconstructive dismantling”, I prefer to call a review of the evidence.

If each individual piece of purported evidence for a recent death of Jesus in Paul’s letters can be dismantled --- with arguments consistent with Pauline thought --- then perhaps Paul was not writing about a recent human figure at all.

Beyond revelation from God, what is reasonably clear and consistent is Paul’s ultimate dependency on the scriptures. Paul constructed the redemptive and salvific death of his Jesus Christ by means of creative readings of the scriptures.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

robert j wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:01 amIf each individual piece of purported evidence for a recent death of Jesus in Paul’s letters can be dismantled --- with arguments consistent with Pauline thought --- then perhaps Paul was not writing about a recent human figure at all.
What I am saying is that no cumulative argument is safe from that sort of treatment. Cumulative arguments may as well not exist.
Beyond revelation from God, what is reasonably clear and consistent is Paul’s ultimate dependency on the scriptures.
We agree on the fact, but not on its relevance.
Paul constructed the redemptive and salvific death of his Jesus Christ by means of creative readings of the scriptures.
Same issue. It is irrelevant to when Paul thought it had all gone down, except insofar as the scriptures themselves could be used to determine the timing.

ETA: You and I had a very brief exchange about this last year, at which point I wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:01 pm
robert j wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:33 amThe part of the mystery involving the earthly events of his Jesus (when in the likeness of men) occurred deep in the scriptural past. But the mystery had been recently revealed, in Paul’s time.
I find it very hard to read the Pauline epistles as they stand in such a way as to suggest that, for Paul, the life and death of Jesus took place in the misty past, scriptural or not. Not all of scriptural time is open, at any rate; Jesus cannot have preceded Adam (1 Corinthians 15.22, 45), Abraham (Galatians 3.16), Moses (Romans 10.4-5), or David (Romans 1.4), for example.

Paul views Jesus as the first instance of the general resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.13, 20-28), so we would be at pains to explain why the general resurrection began so long ago and is only going to be completed now, in Paul's own lifetime (1 Thessalonians 4.15; 1 Corinthians 15.51) or shortly thereafter (1 Thessalonians 5.23; 2 Corinthians 4.14). Even the metaphor he uses, the first fruits, works best with a brief interval of time.

Paul also claims that Jesus was the end of the law for those who have faith (Romans 10.4), that he was raised from the dead in order to justify humans (Romans 4.25), and that this justification comes by faith (Romans 5.1) in Jesus (Romans 3.22). He avers that no one can have faith unless he first hears the gospel from a preacher (Romans 10.14) who is sent (Romans 10.15). Finally, Paul acknowledges that it was at the present time (Romans 3.26) that God showed forth his justice apart from the law (Romans 3.21), and that the sent ones, the apostles, were to come last of all (1 Corinthians 4.9); he also implies that the resurrection appearances were the occasion of the sending out of apostles (1 Corinthians 9.1; 15.7, 9; Galatians 1.15-16). If we presume that, for Paul, Jesus was raised in the distant past but only recently revealed to the apostles, we must take pains to account for this gap; why, for Paul, did Jesus die in order to end the law and justify humans but then wait indefinitely before making this justification available to humans?

All is explained, however, if we recognize that Jesus came and lived and died "at the right time" (Romans 5.6). Paul obviously has a specific time in mind; it would be weird for him to emphasize the right time in this way if he had no idea when that time even was. He elsewhere even calls it "the fullness of time" (Galatians 4.4), which sounds very much like "the ends of the ages" (1 Corinthians 10.11) during which Paul himself was living.

I believe everything works best in the Pauline epistles (again, as they stand) on the assumption of a recent life and death of Jesus; other assumptions as to the timing would require assumptions or guesses not present in the texts themselves.
I do not recall you having responded yet, but I may be mistaken.

The main question I have for anybody who thinks that Paul did not regard Jesus' death as recent is this: what time frame does "the fullness of time" (Galatians 4.4) or "the right time" (Romans 5.6) refer to? What did Paul have in mind? Anything hazy here is simply out for me, because the text implies that Paul has a time in mind.

Many moons ago, on the old IIDB/FRDB, I laid out this argument with even more points. I have since that time nixed a few of them (for example, I used to include the "brother of the Lord" argument in this context, but I no longer think it is sound). Some of these points may be removed by positing interpolations, and I am completely open to such arguments (some of them depend, for example, on parts of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 that I have argued to be spurious). But that is why I referred to the epistles "as they stand."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by robert j »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:20 pm
ETA: You and I had a very brief exchange about this last year, at which point I wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:01 pm
robert j wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:33 amThe part of the mystery involving the earthly events of his Jesus (when in the likeness of men) occurred deep in the scriptural past. But the mystery had been recently revealed, in Paul’s time.
[see Ben's post above for more detail]

I find it very hard to read the Pauline epistles as they stand in such a way as to suggest that, for Paul, the life and death of Jesus took place in the misty past, scriptural or not ....

Paul views Jesus as the first instance of the general resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15.13, 20-28) ...

Paul also claims that Jesus was the end of the law for those who have faith (Romans 10.4), that he was raised from the dead in order to justify humans (Romans 4.25), and that this justification comes by faith (Romans 5.1) ...

All is explained, however, if we recognize that Jesus came and lived and died "at the right time" (Romans 5.6) ... elsewhere even calls it "the fullness of time" (Galatians 4.4), which sounds very much like "the ends of the ages" (1 Corinthians 10.11) during which Paul himself was living ...

I do not recall you having responded yet, but I may be mistaken.
I did respond to you on this. I started a new thread in order to respond directly to this and to focus on Paul's use of the scriptures and the question of whether or not Paul considered the death of his Jesus Christ as a recent event ---

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3859&p=82275&hilit= ... ert#p82275

As I mentioned in that OP, we had previously discussed most of the examples you provided --- it was via PM at your request. But anyway, few of those examples provide significant support for an argument for a recent death of Jesus in relation to Paul's time.

You responded to that OP, including an emphasis on the two examples you seem to find the strongest for a recent death of Jesus in Paul's time --- and you have asked the same question again in this thread ---
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:20 pm
The main question I have for anybody who thinks that Paul did not regard Jesus' death as recent is this: what time frame does "the fullness of time" (Galatians 4.4) or "the right time" (Romans 5.6) refer to? What did Paul have in mind? Anything hazy here is simply out for me, because the text implies that Paul has a time in mind.
I responded directly to those two examples in detail in what is --- as I'm writing --- the last post in that thread ---

viewtopic.php?f=3769&p=83998#p83998

My discussion of the evidence for Romans 5:6 above in this thread was cut-and-pasted from my response to your question in that earlier thread.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ah, you are correct. My memory is not what it used to be. And on that other thread I can see that I am actually the one who did not respond to your latest post. My apologies.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply