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.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
It's been well established now in this unholy Forum that there is no quality evidence for a Passion Narrative before GMark. The narrative as a whole looks like a complete literary construction with smaller sources such as Paul, The Jewish Bible and imagination. Regarding the question of this Thread:

Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

what exactly does "Mark" (author) report that could support his presentation of Jesus crucified having a source of historical witness that was before Paul? From The Skeptical Critical Commentary:

15:39
And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. (ASV)

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
3708 [e] Idōn [1]Ἰδὼν [1]having seen V-APA-NMS
1161 [e] de δὲ moreover, Conj
3588 [e] ho the Art-NMS
2760 [e] kentyriōn [2]κεντυρίων [2]centurion N-NMS
3588 [e] ho - Art-NMS
3936 [e] parestēkōs παρεστηκὼς standing V-RPA-NMS
1537 [e] ex ἐξfrom Prep
1727 [e] enantias [3]ἐναντίας [3]opposite of Adj-GFS
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ him, PPro-GM3S
3754 [e] hoti ὅτι that Conj
3779 [e] houtōs οὕτως thus Adv
1606 [e] exepneusen ἐξέπνευσεν, he breathed his last, V-AIA-3S
3004 [e] eipen εἶπενsaid, V-AIA-3S
230 [e] Alēthōs Ἀληθῶς Truly Adv
3778 [e] houtos οὗτος this DPro-NMS
3588 [e] ho - Art-NMS
444 [e] anthrōpos ἄνθρωπος man N-NMS
5207 [e] Huios Υἱὸς Son N-NMS
2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ of God N-GMS
1510 [e] ēn [4]ἦν. [4]was! V-IIA-3S

Commentary:

[1]The offending word is "see" often with a figurative meaning = perceived/understood.

http://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm

Note the same word is used in the Parable of the Sower which provides the key to the entire Gospel (I know this is sow because "Mark" (author) says sow):

4:12
that seeing they may see, and not perceive
"Mark's" point is that people see literally but they do not see figuratively (understand). "Mark's" primary theme is illustrating this with the supposed disciples. They see literally but do not understand and the related failure is directly proportional to the quantity of literal seeing. The closer they are literally/physically to Jesus, the less they understand (Peter/Simon). This point is contrasted with the opposite relationship. Those not literally/physically close to Jesus do "see" (understand). They may be far away or opposite as opposed to with.

[2]"Mark" uses a Latin word for the centurion. Strange/bizarre/macabre that a Greek work about an Aramaic setting would throw in a Latin word. The other Gospellers thought so as no one else used it. Further support that the equally strange identification of one of the sons of replacement Simon having a Latin name within the Passion (try to find a Latin name before the Passion) is a Literary touch.

[3]Another word, often with a figurative meaning ("Mark" uses a lot of those) = Opposed.
Here the only properly placed witness to Jesus' crucifixion is someone who had never literally seen Jesus before or at least before he took his vow of silence back when Jesus was a Talker (I don't think The Hound would have liked Jesus very much).

[4]Hmm, so Jesus spends his entire career (so to speak) trying to convince those that literally are with him and physically see everything, to understand, and fails. In contrast, the opposition, Latin, never saw any Teaching & Healing Ministry but is placed to understand the significance of the supposed crucifixion. Unlike the Disciples who literally/physically heard (repeatedly, so to speak) Jesus' instruction to proclaim him after the crucifixion, the Latin from SonofManHatin, without ever literally/physically hearing Jesus' instructions, proclaims Jesus as Son of God after the crucifixion.

Sadly a portion of CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) postures that the Centurion is being sarcastic and the Christian translations mistranslate the offending word as "see" instead of "perceive"/"understand". Obviously they want the Disciples to be the supposed first historical witness here and not an unidentified Latin crucifier. But the specific word used and "Mark's" theme support that the Centurion is truly serious.

Finally (so to speak), the last word is in imperfect form and I wonder if it should be translated as "is", "this man is son of God"? Truly that would fit Paul's theology.

Bonus material for Solo. "Mark" is careful to only use "ἐναντίας" one other time in a very critical passage (so to speak). Start with the conclusion that it supports this post and than tell us how.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
andrewbos
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 2:38 am
Contact:

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

Post by andrewbos »

JoeWallack wrote:
that seeing they may see, and not perceive
"Mark's" point is that people see literally but they do not see figuratively (understand). "Mark's" primary theme is illustrating this with the supposed disciples. They see literally but do not understand and the related failure is directly proportional to the quantity of literal seeing. The closer they are literally/physically to Jesus, the less they understand (Peter/Simon). This point is contrasted with the opposite relationship. Those not literally/physically close to Jesus do "see" (understand). They may be far away or opposite as opposed to with.
I don't know if the author or a redactor of Mark re-used this sentence with the meaning as you describe it but I see it as having other origins.
I see Q1 as originally (secret) tantric-mystic instructions to a small group of direct contemporary followers of Jesus.
The teachings have been written in such a way that you can only understand their meaning after you have been instructed in their meaning in the context of the whole ideology, in order that outsiders will not understand them if they lay their hands on them but also that the whole ideology can be memorized easily by learning the sayings by heart.
The same goes for collections of spiritual sutras which also first need elaborate explanations in order to be grasped.

The first half of Mark is not about the passion at all (except for the prediction bits that join the two very different halves together rather clumsily) but fits very well with the idea of Q1 as a mystic text and Jesus as a tantric-mystic master who demonstrates the occult powers that go together with such such mystic practices.

So whatever reason (the final editor of?) Mark had to put the focus on the passion part, he somehow retains these elements in support of Jesus as a (holy guru type) teacher of mysticism with secret teachings that are not included in Mark itself.
Except that the redactors of Q1 and Q (the latter authors of Luke and Matthew) show no knowledge of the original meaning of the sayings and bend them in all sorts of weird ways to make them more or (mostly) less fit with the theologies of the different redactors.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2103
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

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

Post by Charles Wilson »

JoeWallack wrote:Hmm, so Jesus spends his entire career (so to speak) trying to convince those that literally are with him and physically see everything, to understand, and fails. In contrast, the opposition, Latin, never saw any Teaching & Healing Ministry but is placed to understand the significance of the supposed crucifixion. Unlike the Disciples who literally/physically heard (repeatedly, so to speak) Jesus' instruction to proclaim him after the crucifixion, the Latin from SonofManHatin, without ever literally/physically hearing Jesus' instructions, proclaims Jesus as Son of God after the crucifixion.
JW: Very fine Post. You hit all the right notes.
...the opposition, Latin,...is placed to understand the significance of the supposed crucifixion.
'N where is that "Place"? That would be "Below the Crucified "Jesus", looking up." 'N whom does the Roman Soldier look up to?
They're telling you in a Literary manner whom the Roman Soldier looks up to. They're telling you whom the soldier believes this god to be.

Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:

"Mucianus entered the camp to examine more accurately the individual claims. The victorious army, wearing their proper decorations and arms, he drew up with moderate intervals of space between the divisions; then the Vitellianists, whose capitulation at Bovillae I have already related, and the other troops of the party, who had been collected from the capital and its neighbourhood, were brought forth almost naked. Mucianus ordered these men to be drawn up apart, making the British, the German, and any other troops that there were belonging to other armies, take up separate positions. The very first view of their situation paralyzed them. They saw opposed to them what seemed a hostile array, threatening them with javelin and sword. They saw themselves hemmed in, without arms, filthy and squalid. And when they began to be separated, some to be marched to one spot, and some to another, a thrill of terror ran through them all. Among the troops from Germany the panic was particularly great; for they believed that this separation marked them out for slaughter. They embraced their fellow soldiers, clung to their necks, begged for parting kisses, and entreated that they might not be deserted, or doomed in a common cause to suffer a different lot. They invoked now Mucianus, now the absent Emperor, and, as a last resource, heaven and the Gods, till Mucianus came forward, and calling them "soldiers bound by the same oath and servants of the same Emperor," stopped the groundless panic.

Yes. "...servants of the same emperor..."

CW
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8055
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

JoeWallack wrote: Extant Writings seem to indicate that Paul was the first to write the assertian that Jesus was crucified. Was Paul also the first to assert that Jesus was crucified, without any qualifications?
The author of Hebrews refers to Jesus crucified (Hebrews 6:6) and seems to date before the fall of the Temple (Hebrews 13:11), so it is possible that Paul was preceded by this other writer.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
What exactly does "Mark" (author) report that could support his presentation of Jesus crucified having a source of historical witness that was before Paul? From The Skeptical Critical Commentary:

15:39
And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God. (ASV)

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
3708 [e] Idōn [1]Ἰδὼν [1]having seen V-APA-NMS
1161 [e] de δὲ moreover, Conj
3588 [e] ho the Art-NMS
2760 [e] kentyriōn [2]κεντυρίων [2]centurion N-NMS
3588 [e] ho - Art-NMS
3936 [e] parestēkōs παρεστηκὼς standing V-RPA-NMS
1537 [e] ex ἐξfrom Prep
1727 [e] enantias [3]ἐναντίας [3]opposite of Adj-GFS
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ him, PPro-GM3S
3754 [e] hoti ὅτι that Conj
3779 [e] houtōs οὕτως thus Adv
1606 [e] exepneusen ἐξέπνευσεν, he breathed his last, V-AIA-3S
3004 [e] eipen εἶπενsaid, V-AIA-3S
230 [e] Alēthōs Ἀληθῶς Truly Adv
3778 [e] houtos οὗτος this DPro-NMS
3588 [e] ho - Art-NMS
444 [e] anthrōpos ἄνθρωπος man N-NMS
5207 [e] Huios Υἱὸς Son N-NMS
2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ of God N-GMS
1510 [e] ēn [4]ἦν. [4]was! V-IIA-3S

Commentary:

[1]The offending word is "see" often with a figurative meaning = perceived/understood.

http://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm

Note the same word is used in the Parable of the Sower which provides the key to the entire Gospel (I know this is sow because "Mark" (author) says sow):

4:12
that seeing they may see, and not perceive
"Mark's" point is that people see literally but they do not see figuratively (understand). "Mark's" primary theme is illustrating this with the supposed disciples. They see literally but do not understand and the related failure is directly proportional to the quantity of literal seeing. The closer they are literally/physically to Jesus, the less they understand (Peter/Simon). This point is contrasted with the opposite relationship. Those not literally/physically close to Jesus do "see" (understand). They may be far away or opposite as opposed to with.

[2]"Mark" uses a Latin word for the centurion. Strange/bizarre/macabre that a Greek work about an Aramaic setting would throw in a Latin word. The other Gospellers thought so as no one else used it. Further support that the equally strange identification of one of the sons of replacement Simon having a Latin name within the Passion (try to find a Latin name before the Passion) is a Literary touch.

[3]Another word, often with a figurative meaning ("Mark" uses a lot of those) = Opposed.
Here the only properly placed witness to Jesus' crucifixion is someone who had never literally seen Jesus before or at least before he took his vow of silence back when Jesus was a Talker (I don't think The Hound would have liked Jesus very much).

[4]Hmm, so Jesus spends his entire career (so to speak) trying to convince those that literally are with him and physically see everything, to understand, and fails. In contrast, the opposition, Latin, never saw any Teaching & Healing Ministry but is placed to understand the significance of the supposed crucifixion. Unlike the Disciples who literally/physically heard (repeatedly, so to speak) Jesus' instruction to proclaim him after the crucifixion, the Latin from SonofManHatin, without ever literally/physically hearing Jesus' instructions, proclaims Jesus as Son of God after the crucifixion.

Sadly a portion of CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) postures that the Centurion is being sarcastic and the Christian translations mistranslate the offending word as "see" instead of "perceive"/"understand". Obviously they want the Disciples to be the supposed first historical witness here and not an unidentified Latin crucifier. But the specific word used and "Mark's" theme support that the Centurion is truly serious.

Finally (so to speak), the last word is in imperfect form and I wonder if it should be translated as "is", "this man is son of God"? Truly that would fit Paul's theology.

Bonus material for Solo. "Mark" is careful to only use "ἐναντίας" one other time in a very critical passage (so to speak). Start with the conclusion that it supports this post and than tell us how.

Reaction of ancient witness:

Matthew 27:54
Now the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. (ASV)
Matthew 27:54

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
3588 [e] HO [1]Ὁ - Art-NMS
1161 [e] de δὲ moreover Conj
1543 [e] hekatontarchos [2]ἑκατόνταρχος [2][the] centurion N-NMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
3588 [e] hoi [3]οἱ [3]those Art-NMP
3326 [e] met’ μετ’ with Prep
846 [e] autou αὐτοῦ him PPro-GM3S
5083 [e] tērountes [4]τηροῦντες [4]keeping guard over V-PPA-NMP
3588 [e] ton τὸν - Art-AMS
2424 [e] Iēsoun Ἰησοῦν [6]Jesus, N-AMS
3708 [e] idontes [7]ἰδόντες [7]having seen V-APA-NMP
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
4578 [e] seismon σεισμὸν earthquake N-AMS
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
3588 [e] ta τὰ the things Art-ANP
1096 [e] genomena γενόμενα* taking place, V-APM/P-ANP
5399 [e] ephobēthēsan [8]ἐφοβήθησαν [8]feared V-AIP-3P
4970 [e]sphodra σφόδρα, greatly, Adv
3004 [e]legontes λέγοντες saying, V-PPA-NMP
230 [e] Alēthōs Ἀληθῶς Truly Adv
2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ God's N-GMS
5207 [e] Huios Υἱὸς Son N-NMS
1510 [e] ēn ἦν was V-IIA-3S
3778 [e] houtos οὗτος. this. DPro-NMS

Commentary:
[1]"Matthew" starts the offending verse with the definite article and noun. "Mark" starts the verse with a verb and ends with a verb = "Understood, is! (son of God)". Bad grammar or style?

[2]"Matthew" uses the Greek word for "centurion". "Mark's" word sounds more like "Kyrēnaion" and "Kurious".

[3]"Matthew" has incarnated multiple guards (witnesses).

[4]Witnesses is not the only thing expanding here. The word has a primary meaning of "guard" and in the context of a centurion and crucifixion, must mean "guard". Some Christian translations try to expand the meaning to non-guards also "watching" (up close).

[5]"Matthew" exorcises the figurative "opposite".

[6]"Mark" does not want "Jesus" in his Passion (he wants "that man"). "Matthew" wants Jesus in his Passion.

[7]"Matthew" uses the offending source word but changes the meaning via context from "Mark's" figurative usage (understood) to a literal one (saw).

[8]"Matthew" goes Old Testament School here by adding "feared" which in The Jewish Bible is a sign of respect for God. A major part of "Mark's" irony though is that he uses it as the sign of a lack of faith. Hence, for the Centurion's confession of faith, "Mark" exorcised "fear".

We can see above "Matthew's" attempt to edit his source into a more historical sounding affair with better potential supposed historical witness.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

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

Post by neilgodfrey »

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
What exactly does "Mark" (author) report . . .
An earlier generation of scholars avoided the ambiguity of "Mark, Matthew, Luke, John" -- Is an author using these names as book titles or personal names of authors? -- by prefacing the personal name with Saint. St Mark, St John, . . . . It does have a certain economy to it.

But will our secular and/or ecumenical sensibilities allow us to apply it today?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Summary of reasons so far to doubt that Jesus was crucified:
  • 1) No record of anyone being crucified in Israel in the first half of the first century outside of the Gospel account.

    2) Paul/Fake Paul, writing at a time when crucifixion was all the rage in Israel, smells anachronistic.

    3) Paul provides little detail regarding his Jesus' supposed crucifixion.

    4) Paul's related proof-text from The Jewish Bible refers to being hung from a tree.

    5) Based on Jesus' described offense in the Gospels, he would not have been crucified.

    6) GMark's original crucifixion story consists mainly of the impossible and improbable.

    7) It doesn't make sense that if the leader of a movement was crucified in Jerusalem his movement would be free to continue promoting him in Jerusalem.

    8) There appears to be no quality evidence that anyone who knew Jesus claimed he was crucified.
JW:
We can add to this list that in the generally accepted earliest Pauline Epistle, 1 Thessalonians Paul never explicitly or implicitly indicates a crucifixion...[pause for readers not to believe this, check for themselves, than shake their heads and say, "Damn, he's right"].

The issue of 1 Thessalonians is that the faithful are getting impatient waiting for Jesus' return. The related question for 1 Thessalonians is what does Paul emphasize in response? What is his theme here? It's to be patient. He supports this by saying he is approved by God, God has set requirements for their behavior (including not whining) and they will have to suffer (just like Pee-wee Hersonofman told them). Interestingly though, what he does not say is that they will have to suffer for a long time. This coordinates with the observation that presumably when Paul was first selling Jesus a big part of the appeal was that Jesus was supposed to return sooner rather than later. Sooner would mean less suffering.

If the original (the funnier, earlier Paul) message was simpler and just emphasized Jesus' death and resurrection and predicted return there may have been less need for Paul to emphasize the quantity of suffering on either side, that of believers or that of Jesus. Hence Paul's original message may not have needed a crucifixion to emphasize quantity of suffering on the part of Jesus.

The original Gospel narrative GMark has good parallels with 1 Thessalonians. One observation that is consistent with the above is that "Mark" (author) indicates that Jesus' supposed crucifixion quantity was low by crucifixion standards:

[b]
Strong's Transliteration Greek EnglishMorphology[/b]
3588 [e] ho - Art-NMS
1161 [e] de δὲ and Conj
4091 [e] Pilatos Πιλᾶτος* Pilate N-NMS
2296 [e] ethaumasen ἐθαύμασεν wondered V-AIA-3S
1487 [e] ei εἰ if Conj
2235 [e] ēdē ἤδη already Adv
2348 [e] tethnēken τέθνηκεν, he were dead. V-RIA-3S

Thus "Mark's" Pilate is surprised at how fast his Jesus died. GMark coordinates better with Paul in chronology/theology than the subsequent Gospels which all exorcise "Mark's" Pilate's surprise at how fast "Mark's" Pilate's Jesus died.

As time went on in Paul's time with no Jesus in sight (so to speak) he may have been forced by the spirit to move towards emphasizing the quantity of suffering on the part of the believer and paralleled it with the supposed quantity of suffering on the part of Jesus in subsequent Epistles. It looks like the longest time lag between Epistles is between 1 Thessalonians and the next one. Perhaps Paul just couldn't stand it any more and had to write about how he could stand it some more.

For KK = Dare we tell MH that the ending of the Greek above asks if Jesus died "long ago"?



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.

ErrancyWiki
Secret Alias
Posts: 18371
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

Origen already noted Pilate was surprised and claimed it was a miracle
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Keeping this party going, most people, including Skeptics, don't realize that we have no record of anyone being crucified in Israel in the first half of the first century outside of the Gospel account. Brown confesses this in his classic The Death of the Messiah. The setting supports this as Rome was large and in charge of Israel at this time and Israel was relatively peaceful. The Roman crucifixions in the second half of the century are one of the most memorable occurrences. Thus Paul/Fake Paul, writing at a time when crucifixion was all the rage in Israel, smells anachronistic. This paragraph is reason all by itself to at least doubt that Jesus was crucified.

Additionally, Paul provides little detail regarding his Jesus' supposed crucifixion. The most/only detail Paul seems to give about Jesus' supposed crucifixion is Galatians 3
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
No mention of "crucifixion" but rather hung from a tree. Hanging seems to me to be a more plausible form of death. If Jesus created a disturbance in the Temple during Passover he probably would have been summarily executed by the Temple guard, under Jewish control, and hung (at least at some point during the execution). The problems I have with crucifixion is that all Christian testimony indicates Roman authority would not have considered Jesus a serious political threat, GMark's original crucifixion story is completely unbelievable and it doesn't make sense that if the leader of a movement was crucified in Jerusalem his movement would be free to continue promoting him in Jerusalem. There also appears to be no quality evidence that anyone who knew Jesus claimed he was crucified.

It's possible than that Paul was the first to assert that Jesus was "crucified", that Paul meant it figuratively and that the reason we do not have anything written by anyone who knew Jesus claiming that Jesus was crucified, is because Jesus was not crucified.
I'm intrigued by Galatians 2 -
  • 15 "We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified/counted righteous by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

    17 "But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness/justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose."
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

I'm also intrgued by
2) Paul/Fake Paul, writing at a time when crucifixion was all the rage in Israel, smells anachronistic.
When do you think the Pauline texts were written?
Post Reply