Paul’s Jesus – Creature of the Scriptures or Recent Figure?

[robert j]

Ben,

I moved this to a new thread. The issue here is Paul’s use of the scriptures and, based on Paul’s letters, do Paul's letters clearly demonstrate a recent death for Jesus Christ.

You know, except for your first paragraph cited below, I’ve seen most of your comments here before viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3769&start=90#p80533 almost word-for-word. And we already discussed most of those arguments for a recent Jesus as found in Paul’s letters. I’m going to leave it at that.

I do want to respond to your comments cited below about Paul’s use of the scriptures. The timing of the death of Jesus as seen by Paul is included in my responses. For my part, I wanted to respond here as promised, but will not be participating in a continued discussion.

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.

After some reflection, I think the phrase that I have come to use out of habit, “deep in the scriptural past” is an over-reach. I think, based on the available evidence, Paul’s characterizations of the events of Jesus is better stated simply as he did, “according to the scriptures”.

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

Sure, agreed in principle. But even a death for Jesus post-David leaves nearly all the books of the prophets. Paul seems to have used the scriptures --- in relation to his Jesus --- both as predictions of future events, and as a record of events that had already occurred in the realm of scriptural time.

Certainly OT passages that Paul may have found about bringing Gentiles into the fold, and passages he may have found to argue for the parousia, would have been seen as predictions of future events --- events to take place in his own time.

I suspect that without too much looking one could find OT passages written in a past tense that Paul used as future predictions and visa-versa. The scriptures were Paul’s ‘bitch’ --- intended here in a gender-neutral sense of being subject to his will. Paul used and abused the scriptures and twisted them to satisfy his needs.

Paul’s system has flaws in logic, no such system is perfect. But Paul did see a timeline in the scriptures. And I think that many important OT passages that Paul used can be used and interpreted in the same sense of the past, present, or future tense in which they were written.

My interpretaions below are intended to address your (Ben) comments, but are also addressed to a general audience ---

The Prediction, the Promise, and a Done Deal

In Galatians, Paul claimed the predictive nature of the scriptures.

Galatians chapter 3	Comments
And the Scripture, having foreseen (προϊδοῦσα) that God justifies the Gentiles by faith, foretold the gospel (προευηγγελίσατο) to Abraham: "All the nations will be blessed in you." (3:8)	having foreseen (προϊδοῦσα, aorist, participle, active), or ‘having seen or beheld in advance’ foretold the gospel (προευηγγελίσατο, aorist, indicative, middle), in general use ‘brought glad tidings beforehand’ --- but for Paul, this term nicely described a scriptural prediction of his gospel (τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν). Both terms, used by Paul only in this verse, clearly convey the concept that Paul saw portions of the scriptures as predicting future events.
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,” meaning One, who is Christ. (3:16)	Paul’s funky logic at work. From Genesis 12:7 and 13:15.
Why then the Law? It was added on account of transgressions, until the seed [i.e. Christ] to whom the promise has been made would come (ἔλθῃ) … (3:19)	would come (ἔλθῃ, aorist, subjunctive, active), also appropriately translated as ‘should come’. This form of the verb indicates an expected future event --- when Christ would come. This would by implication include the salvific death of Jesus, but the need for the law --- in Paul’s world --- would only end upon the revelation, when the knowledge of Jesus Christ came.

I think Paul’s use of the salvific figure in Isaiah 53 as a thematic representation of his Jesus Christ is adequately established. I take it a bit further. Along with other portions of the scriptures, I think Paul mined these passages to find and construct the story of his Jesus Christ.

In Isaiah, I think the salvific death of his Jesus Christ was a done-deal for Paul, but with current benefits. The wounding, death and delivering up are all presented in the past tense, but the bearing of sins for the many is in the present.

Isaiah 53 (a few examples)	How Paul Interpreted ---
This one bears (φέρει) our sins, and is grieved for us, and we accounted him to be in trouble, and calamity, and ill treatment (53:4)	bears (φέρει) --- present, indicative, active --- the sacrifice of Jesus is acting in the present time in “bearing” our sins.
But he was wounded (ετραυματίσθη) on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities … (53:5) … the Lord delivered him up (παρέδωκεν αυτόν) for our sins. (53:6) … he was led (ήχθη) to death. (53:8) … his soul was delivered up (παρεδόθη) unto death … (53:12)	All these verbs are in the aorist, indicative representing the past tense here. I think Paul saw the death of Jesus as having already occurred when Isaiah was written. “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3)
The Lord wills to cleanse him from his blow. If you can give an offering for sin, your soul will see a long-lived seed. And the Lord wills to take away from the travail of his soul, to show him light, and to form [him] with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he will bear their sins. Therefore he will inherit many, and he will divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered up unto death … (53:10-12)	I think Paul saw the concept of the resurrection of Jesus in these verses.

It’s interesting to note the author of Romans revealed a conceptual link between Paul’s Abrahamic “promise” in Galatians and Isaiah 53. In Romans chapter 4 one finds an updated review of Paul’s argument in Gal 3:6-26, and the pericope concludes (Romans 4:25) with a paraphrase of Isaiah 53 (especially verses 6, 8, and 10-12, LXX). These materials were central to Paul's system.

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, 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.

One might wonder why Paul did not elaborate more in his letters on the passages in Isaiah 53, with more details of the salvific sufferings and sacrifice. But it’s important to remember the occasional nature of Paul’s letters --- letters intended not as theological treatises, but rather written to address problems, questions, and misunderstandings encountered among each group. And, of course, to garner compensation.

Paul spent time with each of his groups during his evangelizing visit relating his system. The centerpiece of that system was the salvific sufferings and death of his Jesus Christ, and one can safely assume that Paul related those events in detail.

In Galatians, Paul found it necessary to remind the group about how the self-accepted humiliation of Jesus had redeemed them from the law because circumcision was the primary issue with that congregation.

But all of his congregations apparently accepted the salvific death of Paul’s Jesus figure. Without that central and foundational concept they would not have any use for Paul --- he might just as well have read animal entrails to foretell their future. Other than ancillary issues, implications, and a few brief reminders related to the salvific death of Jesus, Paul did not find it necessary to spend ink in his letters reviewing the events of that death ---- as found in the scriptures. Events he had already related to them in detail. Events they had accepted.

The Mystery Revealed

Paul used the scriptures to offer to Gentiles the ability to become full participants with the ancient god of the Jews without the need of circumcision. And as a very significant benefit, all those who believed in Paul’s salvific heavenly spirit would have their sins forgiven and escape the terrible wrath to come --- concepts also patched together by Paul from the scriptures. Paul’s heavenly spirit would make his appearance on earth in the near future to sweep all the believers away into the heavens. It was an audacious and bold scheme. But Paul did find some takers.

I think 1 Corinthians is the best example among Paul’s letters of a collaborative effort. A number of passages have been variously characterized by investigators as pre-Pauline, non-Pauline, or interpolations. For example, the “love poem” of chapter 13, the “kerygma” of 15:3-8, and some of the poetic material in 15:42-57. But I think this material was included in the letter with Paul’s approval and editorial control.

Paul, in his travels, accumulated a handful of junior-partners. I suspect at least one or more of those partners had the benefit of a proper Greek education. I think we see in some of those passages in 1 Corinthians the work of one or more Greek junior-partners anxious to show-off their skills, to stretch their rhetorical wings, and to please the boss.

I find it as no surprise that some of the “long-secret mystery” language in 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 is similar to the last doxology of Romans (Romans 16:25-27). I think one of Paul’s junior-partners had a hand, to a varying extent, in both. And I find it as no surprise that some of the phraseology in those pasages is non-typical for most of the Paulines.

I think Paul constructed his system from the Jewish scriptures. It was, in essence, a mystery kept secret in the ages before Paul applied his very creative readings to patch together his discovery, his salvific creation. Paul constructed his Frankenstein from the ancient scrolls, but I think it was one of Paul’s Greek junior-partners that applied the spin, the specific language about Paul’s creation that we find in these passages ---

But we speak in a mystery (μυστηρίῳ), the wisdom of God having been hidden, which God foreordained before the ages (αἰώνων) for our glory … (1 Corinthians 2:7)

… according to the revelation of the mystery (μυστηρίου) having been kept secret in times of the ages (αἰωνίοις), but now having been made manifest by and through the prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the eternal God, having been made known to all the nations … (Romans 16:25-26)

I think Paul would have been pleased.

robert j

n. b. --- I bid adieu to all, as I won't be participating further for at least quite some time.

[Ben C. Smith]

I bid adieu to all, as I won't be participating further for at least quite some time.

Hi, Robert. I know you are saying that you may not be back for a while, but will post this brief response anyway; it will be waiting for you whenever you return.

I either agree or find myself able to concede for the sake of argument pretty much everything you wrote. (I am not sure, for example, how convinced I am that Paul's junior partners are the ones responsible for the mystery language, but I am fine with running with that assumption so that we can test others as we go.)

But I want to draw your attention to two paragraphs which I had written concerning Paul's assumption of a recent salvation event. The first is this:

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?

I think that one can reasonably mount an argument on the foundation of the mystery language which would mitigate my observations here. The basic issue is the gap between (A) the salvific event itself and (B) the revelation of that event to humans in a way that leads to the salvation obtained by that event. And the mystery concept can, I think, cover that gap. We can imagine Paul thinking of a Jesus in a sort of scriptural world (I suppose), as far removed from Paul's current reality as need be, and God happened, in his own wisdom, to choose the present time to reveal Jesus' sacrificial death. I am not sure we should interpret the evidence this way, but I think we can.

But the second paragraph is this:

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.

Here is where we part ways, it would seem. Your viewpoint can easily accommodate a statement to the effect that the mystery has been revealed at the right time or in the fullness of time (= Paul's present), but that is not what these verses actually say; they say that God sent his Son in the fullness of time, or that Christ actually died at the right time. How accommodating is your viewpoint of these passages (without butchering their meaning)? I cannot see where you discuss them in the OP. To speak of the salvific event itself having happened at the right time, or in the fullness of time, seems to me to imply that Paul knows what time that is; and, barring some weirdness I have not thought of, I think the most natural and obvious time would be the Pauline present, as the similarity of "fullness of time" with "consummation of the ages" would suggest anyway.

[Giuseppe]

I think Paul saw the death of Jesus as having already occurred when Isaiah was written.

This is really the more strong point of the entire argument of robert_j. It is comparable, as degree of persuasion, to the more strong point in support of Doherty's view (that only demons killed Jesus).

When I read Isaiah's Suffering Servant, I am already moved to think: "but this man is Jesus!". And I place him in the remotest past.

[Giuseppe]

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.

Good point. But can Rom 5:6 be an interpolation?

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 don't think so, especially if "born from woman, born under the law" is a clear anti-marcionite interpolation. In this case the "fulness of the time" is still the Paul's time, but the Jesus who is came in this present time is the Risen Jesus. By inserting the interpolation "born from woman, born under the law", the passage seems now to refer to a not-still-crucified Jesus who is came (i.e. a recent crucifixion).

[Giuseppe]

But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,[c] Father

In the fullness of time, who is sent by God is the Spirit of the Son, not the Son himself. So this verse talks against a recent crucifixion.

[Giuseppe]

Indeed, even the suffering servant of God in Isaiah was so unmistakably described as man that the most resolute elevation of his figure to the supernatural and metaphysical world, such as we find in Paul, could not obliterate his human features. The question is, whether these features are those of a real, that is to say historical, man: whether the heavenly being which must appear as a man according to Paul came upon the earth at a definite moment in history.

(Arthur Drews, Witnesses to the historicity of Jesus Christ)

Surely the Ignatius et alia's emphasis that Jesus died "under Pontius Pilate" betrayes all the desire of placing the Paul's Jesus "at a definite moment in history", but Paul never specifies which is the "right time" for Jesus's death. If that time was more specific and/or recent in the eyes of Pau, why wasn't he more specific?

If you say, á la Maurice Casey, that it's idiotic (I go to memory) for Paul remember that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, then why did Ignatius insist so much to remember that Jesus was crucified "under Pilate"? Evidently it was theologically necessary for Ignatius remember Pilate. Why couldn't it be as well theologically necessary for Paul? Only because the enemies of Paul weren't the same enemies of Ignatius? In both the cases, you are moved to accept

1) that Paul didn't know no Pilate, and so no historical Jesus, (since he never mentions Pilate)

Or

2) that the enemies of Ignatius didn't know no Pilate, and so no historical Jesus (since Ignatius takes disturb to remember them the role of Pilate)..

In both the cases, you have to admit the existence of mythicist Christians.

[Giuseppe]

A possible objection represnted by the claim that the enemies of Ignatius were only docetic historicist Christians and not docetic myticist Christians is easily confuted: if the enemies of Ignatius were docetic historicist Christians, then Ignatius would have simply need to remember that "Jesus really suffered and died". The addition of Pilate continues to be not-necessary for a simply anti-docetic Ignatius...

(just as mentioning Pilate would be not-necessary for a presumed historicist Paul)

...unless the enemies of Ignatius were docetic mythicist Christians, i.e. Christians who didn't put the apparent crucifixion of Jesus "at a definite time of history".

And as for the enemies of Ignatius, so for Paul.

[robert j]

Ben,

I would like to continue with this discussion, with the caveat that it may again take me a while to respond to additional comments you might provide.

In regards to the OP ---

I either agree or find myself able to concede for the sake of argument pretty much everything you wrote.

OK, that certainly helps to narrow down the issues.

...The basic issue is the gap between (A) the salvific event itself and (B) the revelation of that event to humans in a way that leads to the salvation obtained by that event. And the mystery concept can, I think, cover that gap. We can imagine Paul thinking of a Jesus in a sort of scriptural world (I suppose), as far removed from Paul's current reality as need be, and God happened, in his own wisdom, to choose the present time to reveal Jesus' sacrificial death. I am not sure we should interpret the evidence this way, but I think we can.

A point of at least partial agreement here. Whether or not one might agree that this is the most likely solution, we can agree that the “long-secret-mystery” language in Paul can adequately, and with internal consistency, account for a long gap in time between a salvific death of Jesus in the realm of scriptural time and a recent revelation of that knowledge in Paul’s time

Here is where we part ways, it would seem... To speak of the salvific event itself having happened at the right time, or in the fullness of time, seems to me to imply that Paul knows what time that is; and, barring some weirdness I have not thought of, I think the most natural and obvious time would be the Pauline present ...

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.

For while we were still (ἔτι) helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5.6, NASB)

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

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 or both positions, 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.

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.

In Galatians 4:1-7, Paul used a legal argument about laws and traditions of inheritance to introduce an argument for God’s adoption of Gentile believers as sons and heirs. The phrase “fullness of time” may not have been intended to characterize any specific chronological point in time --- but only to serve as an analogous term for the ”previously appointed time” used in the associated human example.

However, I acknowledge that that Paul may very well have intended the “fullness of time” in a recent context when God, “sent forth his son”.

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son … (Galatians 4:4)

But we are in Paul’s world here. In Paul’s world, how did god send forth his son?

But when God, the One having selected me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles ... (Galatians 1:15-16, conveniently borrowed from Jeremiah 1:4-5 and 1:10)

God “sent forth his son” through Paul.

… God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts … (Galatians 4:6)

It was the Spirit of Jesus that God had recently sent forth, through Paul.

“… the righteousness of God has been made known, being borne witness to by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those believing …” (Romans 3:21-22).

And God “sent forth his son” through the scriptures, for all those believing, through Paul.

[Ben C. Smith]

I apologize again for not responding to this before, and then for forgetting that you ever wrote it. I can no longer remember why I did not respond at the time.

This will be brief.

For while we were still (ἔτι) helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5.6, NASB)

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

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 sacrifice 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 double ἔτι creates gibberish, and I doubt it is original. Or, if it is, then it is a slip of the authorial pen, one out of which you somehow manage to interpret a non sequitur: despite the fact that the exact timing of Jesus' death did not matter in the slightest (just so long it happened sometime after David and before the present), the timing was still spot on. To read such a thing into it does not work for me, not least because your interpretation of Paul removes him from his own time and place and makes him say things that nobody caught on to until you came along. Far more likely (to my way of thinking) is that Paul, just like every other Jew whose eschatological expectations involved a Messiah figure of some kind, linked the coming of the Messiah/Christ to the turn of the ages. This allows Paul to be saying exactly what it sounds like he is saying, that Jesus died at the right time, the "right time" being the consummation of the age, which is what Galatians 4.4 is also saying: "But, when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his son...." The fullness of time is also the consummation of the age, just (again) like it sounds. Paul is not a (post)modern theologian; he is an ancient Jewish religious cult leader.

You somehow equate God sending forth his son with God revealing his son in Paul in Galatians 1.15-16, but that is far from the parallel I would reach for. Revealing is not the same as sending:

Romans 8.3-4, 14-15: 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. .... 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!”

Galatians 4.4-6: 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

God sending his son = God sending his son to die: at the right time (Romans 5.6), in the fullness of time (Galatians 4.4). This is not some vague, arbitrary chronology; Paul obviously knows what time he has in mind, as you understand:

However, I acknowledge that that Paul may very well have intended the “fullness of time” in a recent context when God, “sent forth his son”.

It is just that I completely disagree with your parallel.

Finally, I do not even know what it means for these events to happen, in Paul's mind, only in the scriptures. Scripture revealing these events beforehand makes perfect sense to me; these events not even being thought of as having any separate existence outside of the scriptures, however, does not. This is the huge impasse between you and me, and it governs your interpretations in ways that mine are not governed.

[Giuseppe]

Revealing is not the same as sending:

Romans 8.3-4: 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. .... 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!”

Galatians 4.4-6: 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

God sending his son = God sending his son to die: at the right time (Romans 5.6), in the fullness of time (Galatians 4.4).

Revealing is the same as sending:

Galatians 4.4-6: 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

In the first sending (by God) who is sent is the Son (verse 4).
In the second sending (by God) who is sent is “the Spirit of His Son into our hearts” (verse 6).

This image from Vridar is strongly explicative about the Risen Christ as who is sent in both the occurrences.