To be honest, I can never figure out the point of most posts here, especially Giuseppe's. Sometimes yours as well, but you do redeem yourself once and a while. I'll withhold the post I am thinking of, for fear it might go to your head.Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:53 pmNot only did you miss the point, you're attempting to apply it in a way that I myself did not intend to.I'm not meaning to be quarrelsome. But I think there is a LOT of distance (both in miles/kilometers & worldview) between what goes on in Alexandria and what goes on in Galatia. In Gatatians I do not see so much a royal figure being portrayed as portrayed as crucified as the divine redeemer, which I would say is a figure more relevant to a mystery religion than a historical event.
Giuseppe asked if there was evidence for a crucifixion ritual or performance. I offered one circumstantial piece of evidence. I never said, hinted at, or implied that this had anything to do with what Paul wrote in Gal 3:1. It would only serve as a witness, when taking Paul's words at face value, that indeed such performances were done.
I think there is ZERO evidence that there was some sort of (pre-Christian) "crucifixion ritual" in the ANE region (and let's throw in Syria, Egypt, N. Africa, and anywhere in Europe), despite what Frazer thought/said. Evidence for stuff like that in the Americas or areas not in especially close contact with the Romans (like China, yes, China, I don't care anything about the silk trade, etc., as the intermediaries were Indians, who I don't think had such a ritual either). Don't even speak of Africa, as Romans were not especially knowledgeable about anything south of the Sahara or Ethiopia.
Now why you want to say that Galatians talk about the crucifixion being previously described graphically to the readers has nothing to do with a crucifixion ritual is beyond me. Since I know Giuseppe doesn't believe there was a flesh and bones Jesus, any talk of him that sounds like it is about a flesh & bones Jesus must be describing a heavenly Jesus. Lovejoy and the Marxists had made their best case for a pre-christian Jesus and a myth to go with it a century ago. I have respect for the Marxist POV, and Lovejoy may make some valid points, but I am not convinced by them. Oh, I have a weird and has-to-be-wrong POV of my own, but I don't talk about it using categorical terms like many here do.
Instead of castigating us all for being too stooped to see the obvious (that is, your opinion, which of course is correct as can be) or read your mind, when you speak of "crucifixion ritual" make sure we can tell whether you are really interested in the crucifixion or the ritual itself. Personally, I think they go together like peanut butter and jelly. If you have a ritual crucifixion than a description of that crucifixion is describing a ritual, but I don't think we have that. If you have a crucifixion ritual, though, any description of the crucifixion part has to refer to a real one or to a non-physical one.
Weren't you around here, or FRDB, years back?
DCH