Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by spin »

robert j wrote:From another thread about Galatians 3:1 ---
spin wrote:Jesus, what a trainwreck this thread seems to be. The o.p. hangs on the misunderstood significance of the verb προγραφω. Look at the word. Can you see γραφω in there? You know, to do with writing (as in "graphology")? "Set down in writing". Even the etymology of "proscribe" hints at the significance.

Paul had apparently sent these Galatians letters that told them of the crucifixion. You saw the letters with your own eyes and heard them read....

There is no notion of having seen Jesus crucified in Galatia, only having seen what had been set down in writing.
Here you characterize the term as referring to something written in the past.

While it's certainly possible that this written material was something Paul had written, perhaps part of one of his other letters. However, with Paul's predilection for using the Jewish scriptures to support his positions (such as Galatians 3:13), I think it's more likely that the written material that Paul was referring to in Galatians 3:1 was the scriptures.
Above I was trying to demonstrate that writing was irrelevant in each of the exemplars, as it probably is in Gal 3:1. The significance is that the information was openly presented (proclaimed, announced) to the Galatians, as it was with all my exemplars. (That of course excludes the hope of them having seen Jesus crucified in Galatia.) The only "in the past" is the tense of the verb. The Galatians had received the umm, good news... about the crucifixion.

As for "predilection" for using Jewish scriptures, I guess that every writer we look at in the NT has such a predilection. There is nothing whatsoever in Gal 3:1 to suggest that Paul was exercising this "predilection".

The problem in Gal 3:1 is to understand the importance of "before (their) eyes", which suggests something other than, or more than, simply reading a text. There was something present for them to see—which I guess is what suggested that they might have seen the crucifixion. The easiest approach to the problem is that they received the evangelism of Paul. He proclaimed the crucifixion, making it real to them. I don't think simple reading cuts it. In fact the following verse would seem to support evangelism by Paul: he implies that they received the spirit by hearing in faith. Paul is describing an event the Galatians were there to witness. The fact that Paul contrasts the way they were first converted (through faith in what was heard) with the works of the law negates the use of Jewish religious texts.

A reference to the Galatians being preached to in Gal 3:1-2 deals both with the seeing and the hearing, an event with caused them to receive the spirit. Now, though, the presence of other preachers—Jewish proselytizers—has made them "lose their reason".
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by robert j »

I respect your opinions in the above reply, but I just don’t find them convincing that what the congregation saw with their own eyes were not the scriptures.

Whether or not Paul wrote Romans 15:4 is not necessarily definitive to the question here. Even if Paul didn’t write it (a possibility you suggested), some literate ancient writer --- not all that long after Paul --- found it perfectly suitable to use the exact same form of the verb (προεγράφη) in reference to the Jewish scriptures.

With a clear reference to the scriptures using the exact same form of the verb in Romans 15:4, with Paul’s use of a related form of the verb about 30 times (γέγραπται, it is written/it has been written) all referring to the scriptures, and with Paul using Deuteronomy a few lines later in Galatians to characterize the significance of the redemption provided by Christ based on one being hung on a tree --- well, when I’m in Montana and hear a whinny and hoof-beats, I think horses.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by spin »

robert j wrote:I respect your opinions in the above reply, but I just don’t find them convincing that what the congregation saw with their own eyes were not the scriptures.

Whether or not Paul wrote Romans 15:4 is not necessarily definitive to the question here. Even if Paul didn’t write it (a possibility you suggested), some literate ancient writer --- not all that long after Paul --- found it perfectly suitable to use the exact same form of the verb (προεγράφη) in reference to the Jewish scriptures.

With a clear reference to the scriptures using the exact same form of the verb in Romans 15:4, with Paul’s use of a related form of the verb about 30 times (γέγραπται, it is written/it has been written) all referring to the scriptures, and with Paul using Deuteronomy a few lines later in Galatians to characterize the significance of the redemption provided by Christ based on one being hung on a tree...
Etymology can only get you so far. Relating προγραφω to γραφω is not really a safe way to get at meaning: it's very hit-and-miss. Try relating proclaim to claim, or underline to line ("let me underline this point..."). The fact that Paul uses "a related form of the verb about 30 times" is unimpressive, for we are not dealing with the same verb at all. I had a look for Paul's other uses of προγραφω and beside Rom 15:4 there seems only to be the pseudo-Pauline Ephesians 3:3. Hence we look elsewhere for its usage, as in my first post here. Your attempt at relating προγραφω to scriptures has no apparent basis in the way the particular verb is used anywhere. When talking about scripture Paul does not use προγραφω, but γραφω, over and over, eg "as it is written" (καθως γεγραπται) or in Gal 3:13, "for it is written" (οτι γεγραπται).
robert j wrote:when I’m in Montana and hear a whinny and hoof-beats, I think horses.
You're not in Montana: it's just that the foley artist is good.... but, to replace the analogy, you're in British Columbia with the smell of fresh-cut timber, the crash of mighty trees, your best girlie by your side, and you find yourself lying in a field staring up at the clouds and you can see white horses galloping across the sky. Well, don't you? See, that's a horse's head right there....
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by robert j »

spin wrote:Your attempt at relating προγραφω to scriptures has no apparent basis in the way the particular verb is used anywhere.
The author of Romans 15:4 very clearly used the word in reference to the Jewish scriptures.

However, when we have resorted to whinnying horses in Montana, and white horses in the sky in British Columbia, respectively, I think we have reached an impasse. Happy Trails.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by spin »

robert j wrote:
spin wrote:Your attempt at relating προγραφω to scriptures has no apparent basis in the way the particular verb is used anywhere.
The author of Romans 15:4 very clearly used the word in reference to the Jewish scriptures.

However, when we have resorted to whinnying horses in Montana, and white horses in the sky in British Columbia, respectively, I think we have reached an impasse. Happy Trails.
Plutarch, Appian and Josephus can be seen to be approximate linguistic contemporaries with Paul (hence the choice). When was Rom 15:4 written? The only indication we have is between Rom 14 & Rom 16, though probably after the movable doxology.

But tell me why Rom 15:4 is always mistranslated. It does not in itself promote the notion of Jewish scriptures or long ago. Let's translate it literally thus:

Whatever was proclaimed, all for our instruction was written, that we might have hope through endurance and through the encouragement of the writings.

..

Pancho, let's went.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by iskander »

iskander wrote:Paul was not the first one to preach the gospel of Mark. .Paul is reminding his audience of what they had heard and possibly had read.
Gal 3:1 is a sentence to be read in a new world by people like me : Paul is inviting the reader to consider what he has heard and he has read, and leave the rest of any possible argument to be answered by faith if it exists.
The Galatians at the first did gladly hear and obey the truth. Therefore when he
saith, ‘Who hath bewitched you?’...

Ye are so bewitched and deluded with the perverse opinions of the false
apostles, that now ye will not obey the truth. And whereas I have with great
travail and diligence set forth Christ crucified plainly before your eyes, yet doth
this profit you nothing at all.

In these words he hath respect to the former arguments, whereby he proved,
that to those that will be justified by the law, Christ is but the minister of sin, that
such do reject the grace of God, and that to them Christ died in vain. Which
arguments he had before more vehemently prosecuted and more largely amplified
in their presence, even as if a painter had portrayed Christ Jesus crucified before
their eyes. Now being absent, he putteth them in mind of the same things, saying:
‘to whom Jesus Christ was described in your sight’. As if he said: There is no
painter that with his colors can so lively set out Christ unto you, as I have painted
him out by my preaching; and yet notwithstanding ye still remain most miserably
bewitched.
SAINT PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
1535
Martin Luther
And a modern interpretation, see file. Galatians , Douglas J. Moo , page 182
Attachments
gal3.1 2.PNG
gal3.1 2.PNG (53.56 KiB) Viewed 12712 times
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 4:25 pm
You know, the posture looks more like a tree than it looks like the "traditional" T-shaped cross.

A source for the "tree" imagery regarding the crucifixion?

(As you quote, this is explicit in Odes of Solomon -- connecting the posture with a "tree.")
I am revisiting this thread because I have been going through the Odes of Solomon again:

Stevan Davies, Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity, page 268: One can go further. The Odes do not mention Jesus in any sense. His name is never used, nor do the Odes contain a single one of his sayings, nor do they mention even one event in which the gospels say he participated. The word "cross" supposedly appears twice in the Odes of Solomon (Odes 27 and 42), but only when translators such as Charlesworth take the Syriac (qaysa) or Greek (xylon), the word for tree or wood and translate it as "cross." Less tendentious translators do not do this. The first English translator, Rendel Harris, used the word "wood." Lattke's recent translation gives, for Ode 27, "I stretched out my hands and hallowed my Lord, because the spreading out of my hands is his sign, and my stretching [up] is the wood, which is upright;" (the passage in Ode 42 is nearly identical). Charlesworth and others have assumed that "wood" must be "the cross" and that the physical position of the one speaking is cruciform. Accordingly, while Charlesworth's version of Ode 27 is "I extended my hands and hallowed my Lord, for the expansion of my hands is His sign. And my extension is the upright cross," Lattke argues that the speaker stands with arms upraised, stretched up and outwards, not in a cruciform shape. This matters a great deal because if Lattke is correct (and his recent tome of commentary makes him the world's leading expert on the Odes) then there is no reference to cross or crucifixion in the Odes anywhere.

You also posted this image as an example of the posture:

Image

Michael Lattke seems to support the interpretation of this posture as more treelike than crosslike in the Odes of Solomon, at any rate.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by neilgodfrey »

Do we really need to turn to a scholarly article to see that the posture has closer affinities to a Y or Ψ or even an H than a T?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by robert j »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun May 14, 2017 4:25 pm
You know, the posture looks more like a tree than it looks like the "traditional" T-shaped cross.

A source for the "tree" imagery regarding the crucifixion?
In search of the source of the tree imagery for the suffering of Christ ---

Paul's letters are almost universally considered to be the earliest extant writings about a Jesus Christ. In Paul, the tree imagery is found in Galatians, and Paul's source seems to clearly be Deuteronomy.

From another thread ---
robert j wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:19 pm
I think a significant portion of the framework for Paul’s concept of the suffering and death of his Jesus is found in Isaiah 53 along with Deuteronomy.

Accursed is every man whoever shall not adhere to all the words of this law … (Deuteronomy 27:26)

… for being cursed by God is every one hanging upon a tree … (Deuteronomy 21:23)

These verses were used by Paul to construct his argument in Galatians ---

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; for it has been written: "Cursed is everyone hanging on a tree". (Galatians 3:13).

In Paul's system, I think this fits within a larger context ---
robert j wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:19 pm
In Paul, for his system aimed specifically at Gentiles, Jesus emptied himself and took the form of a man and was humbled to the point of death (Philippians 2:7-8) --- was humiliated, ill-treated, and led to death in order to bear the sins of the many (Isaiah 53) --- and this humiliating death took the form of being hung on a stake or tree per the Jewish tradition in order to exempt believers from the Jewish law (Deuteronomy 27:26, 21:23 and Galatians 3:13) , thus allowing Gentiles full participation with the ancient god of Israel without the need for circumcision.
Nathan
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by Nathan »


Stevan Davies, Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity, page 268: One can go further. The Odes do not mention Jesus in any sense. His name is never used, nor do the Odes contain a single one of his sayings, nor do they mention even one event in which the gospels say he participated. The word "cross" supposedly appears twice in the Odes of Solomon (Odes 27 and 42), but only when translators such as Charlesworth take the Syriac (qaysa) or Greek (xylon), the word for tree or wood and translate it as "cross." Less tendentious translators do not do this. The first English translator, Rendel Harris, used the word "wood." Lattke's recent translation gives, for Ode 27, "I stretched out my hands and hallowed my Lord, because the spreading out of my hands is his sign, and my stretching [up] is the wood, which is upright;" (the passage in Ode 42 is nearly identical). Charlesworth and others have assumed that "wood" must be "the cross" and that the physical position of the one speaking is cruciform. Accordingly, while Charlesworth's version of Ode 27 is "I extended my hands and hallowed my Lord, for the expansion of my hands is His sign. And my extension is the upright cross," Lattke argues that the speaker stands with arms upraised, stretched up and outwards, not in a cruciform shape. This matters a great deal because if Lattke is correct (and his recent tome of commentary makes him the world's leading expert on the Odes) then there is no reference to cross or crucifixion in the Odes anywhere.

FWIW Lattke's distinction between "a cruciform shape" and "arms upraised, stretched up and outwards" seems rather forced to me, as does Davies' distinction between the wood/tree and the cross.

What do they make of the phrase "the spreading out of my hands is his sign," then? If not to the crucifixion, then to what does that refer? Why are outspread hands "his sign"? And what is the significance of "wood, which is upright," if not a reference to the cross? Why is upright wood meaningful to the odist, if not a Christian invoking cruciform imagery?

I can't help but think of the patristic poem De Ligno Crucis (The Tree of the Cross):

There is a place, we believe, at the center of the world,
Called Golgotha by the Jews in their native tongue.
Here was planted a tree cut from a barren stump.
...
This is what the tree looked like: it rose from a single stem
And then extended its arms into two branches

Just like the heavy yardarms on billowing sails are stretched
Or like the yoke beneath which two oxen are put to the plough.
...

Somewhat unrelatedly, Davies' claim that the "Odes do not mention Jesus in any sense" is absurd. When (e.g.) Ode 19 talks of the virgin birth, what or who does he think the odist is referring to? Or when Ode 23 speaks of the "name of the Father ... and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," who is that referring to? Who was having lots cast against him in Ode 28? Who in Ode 41 is "the Son of the Most High" that "appeared in the perfection of his Father," "the Word that was before time in him"? I almost get the sense that Davies has not read the Odes himself, at least based on that excerpt from his book.
Post Reply