Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:54 am
I think you may be making too much of this.
And I think you're missing the point.
The issue raised by Giuseppe as to if there was a ritual involving crucifixion is satisfied by Galatians 3:1, wherein Paul states that before their [the Galatians'] eyes, Christ was
portrayed as crucified, which would go along with what was happening at Alexandria--a mock performance satirizing the Jewish king, culminating with a crucifixion. And just so you're aware, I have Galatians at roughly 130 ad.
The text actually doesn't say who the king is. It may be Lukuas (and I believe it is) but it's interpreted as being the idea of a king executed, as opposed to an actual enthroned king.
Also, I even stated that this may or may not have relevance here, and brought it up merely as something to consider.
Joseph,
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.
Of course
tm, I incorrectly attribute such talk of a vicarious sacrifice of a redeemer figure Christ as the talk of a later editor/redactor who just wanted to bring Paul "up to date" with his own time, where any sort of historical Jesus had been (long ago? recently?) transformed into a divine redeemer named Christ.
However, I see this divine redeemer Christ who sacrifices his life for mankind as the natural development of the old belief among gentile followers of an earthly Jesus, who had himself advocated for the inauguration of a messianic age (maybe with himself as the anointed king, maybe someone else and this honor was projected onto him by his Jewish followers after his death), when unfortunate social circumstances/stresses occasioned by the 1st revolt caused these expectations to morph into something else entirely, something not revolutionary and thus throwing off any lingering associated with Judean rebellion, but a mystery religion.
This naturally dates the development of a divine redeemer after the revolt. How much after, well, that's a matter of opinion. On the other hand, I have no qualms about dating an original Paul, who I do NOT think knew anything about "our" Jesus at all, or even spoke about an anointed ruler who would inaugurate a kingdom of God, but was only concerned with finding a way for gentiles who revered the Judean God and hoped to be able to participate in the blessed age promised to Abraham's "seed" (when it came, and likely via resurrection from the dead) be able to do so via his "faith like Abraham" argument, to the 1st century CE.
Not every Judean of the Diaspora was so generous in making the promise available to gentiles on the basis of Abrahamic style faith only, which was Paul's own "good news," and this provides the context for those who were opposing him, who were offering an alternative "good news" that the blessings were indeed available to gentiles, but *only after some token of conversion* (law observance and circumcision), which the original Paul was dead-set against.
My imaginary editor/redactor's mystery religion also had its own unique "good news" about the universal redemption available through the vicarious death & resurrection of Jesus Christ. "Good news" was not a term restricted to Christians, but was used all the time of emperors, etc. "Vote for me and I'll set ya' free!" (lyric from the Temptations' song "Ball of Confusion"). Naturally, the "vote" in their case was a vote of confidence for the course of rule an emperor has wrested from the hands of others by force of arms.
In my feeble and iggorant brain, I have imagined that Cephas, James & John were a trio of priests in Jerusalem who controlled the acceptance of free-will gifts made by Judeans of the Diaspora. Paul was hoping to get them to accept gifts (the offering for the poor so often referred to in his letters) from his faithful gentiles *as if* they were from Judeans by physical descent of full conversion. They had tentatively set conditions to do so, but seem to have waffled a bit in the face of the strong opposition to Paul's position, which Paul calls them to answer for.
That the later editor/redactor happened to conveniently identify them with Peter, James & John known in his "Christian" (mystery religion) tradition which we also come across in the Gospels and Acts (although these may have come into the form we know them now after the letters were redacted, IMHO), as part of his "updating" strategy for Paul's letters.
Those guys ...
DCH