Galatians 3:1 Jesus crucified in Galatia?

[Blood]

What is your take on Galatians 3:1?

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified."

Since this an authentic Pauline epistle, it must contain real historical information. Was Paul carrying around a painting of the crucifixion? If so, is he calling the Galatians foolish for not believing that a painting is real?

[Bertie]

The word translated here as "clearly portrayed" might more literally be translated as "proclaimed publicly":
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/3-1.htm
http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html# ... F%86%CF%89

[DCHindley]

What is your take on Galatians 3:1?

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified."

Since this an authentic Pauline epistle, it must contain real historical information. Was Paul carrying around a painting of the crucifixion? If so, is he calling the Galatians foolish for not believing that a painting is real?

If a historical Paul said this, and he was an observant Jew (which the letters claim he is), then it would not be a picture (Jews didn't make representations of human beings to avoid any possibility of idolatry). I believe I have heard it suggested that it was some sort of passion play, which Hellenized Jews of the diaspora (such as Paul was supposed to have been) might not have seen as offensive, but it was more likely a verbal account, perhaps read from a written text. If the latter, then I'd guess it was an anachronistic reference to one of the gospels circulating in the 2nd century or at least an account of Jesus' death that served as a source for the canonical gospel passion account, coming from a level of editorial additions I have proposed for the letters of Paul as we have them now.

2:15 ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί•	2:15 We ourselves, who are Judeans by birth and not Gentile sinners
2:16a εἰδότες *[δὲ]* ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως	2:16a know *[but]* that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith
2:16b Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,	2:16b of Jesus Christ,
2:16c καὶ ἡμεῖς	2:16c even we
2:16d εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν	2:16d in Christ Jesus,
2:16e ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως	2:16e beleived, in order to be justified by faith
2:16f Χριστοῦ	2:16f of Christ,
2:16g καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα (Psalm 142:2 OG) σάρξ.	2:16g and not by works of the law, because by works of the law will not be justified any (Ps 143:2) flesh.
2:17 εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, ἆρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος; μὴ γένοιτο.	2:17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then an agent of sin? Certainly not!
2:18 εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω.	2:18 But if I build up again those things which I tore down, then I prove myself a transgressor.
2:19a ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω.	2:19a For I, through the law, died to the law, that I might live to God.
2:19b Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι•	19b I have been crucified with Christ;
2:20a ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός• ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ *υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ* τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.	2:20 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.
2:21a Οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ•	2:21a I do not nullify the grace of God;
2:21b εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν.	2:21b for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose.
3:1a Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν,	3:1a O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you,
3:1b οἷς κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος;	3:1b before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
3:2 τοῦτο μόνον θέλω μαθεῖν ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν• ἐξ ἔργων νόμου τὸ πνεῦμα ἐλάβετε ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως;	3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
3:3 οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε, ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε;	3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?
3:4 τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ.	3:4 Did you experience so many things in vain? -- if it really is in vain.
3:5 ὁ οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως;	3:5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
3:6 Καθὼς Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην•(Gen 15:6 Lxx)	3:6 Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6)
3:7 γινώσκετε ἄρα ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ.	3:7 So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham.

I've taken the conversation back to the middle of ch 2 so you can see the context for the interpolated editorial layer I have proposed. The original writer ("Paul" if that was his real name) was alluding to the story in Genesis 15:6ff, where Abraham believes that God will fulfill his promise of many children prospering in a land of milk & honey, all this well before the giving of the Law, which itself does not justify someone, and Abe's faith justified him, serving as a model for God justifying faithful gentiles without need to follow the Law.

The editorial layer, in boldface type, is basically hijacking the original narrative by a liberal insertion of phrases or words like "of/in Jesus/Christ," and then a couple of longer commentary (2:17-20, 21b; 3:1b-5), meant to redirect the discussion into an entirely new direction, that the Law is entirely invalid and salvation comes through the death of Jesus Christ.

DCH

[Stephan Huller]

the Passion Play suggestion is very interesting. "observant Jew" not so much. but thank you for the value you contribute to the forum. seriously

[Ulan]

the Passion Play suggestion is very interesting...

That's the explanation I heard. Paul might have been the crucified star in his own drama, with which he moved from town to town.

[Stephan Huller]

It makes intuitive sense on a certain level. Unless of course his audience was principally made up of Jews and the reference was to the nation as a whole. גלותא = exile and מגלותא = exiles. Galatian = ܓܠܛܝܐܿ, ܓܠܛܝ. I guess it comes to which explanation best explains the evidence. Was the community a group of Gentiles viewing a passion play or a community of exiled Jews or perhaps an address to all exiles? I don't know.

[Stephan Huller]

Actually upon reflection it isn't a matter of 'either/or' here. The idea that the apostle presented a drama to Jews to re-enact the greatest event in the history of their nation is profoundly significant too. I don't see what value Gentiles would have watching someone else's god being crucified in front of them. The idea that the sin was on the audience (because they were Jewish and their ancestors were responsible for this atrocity) after the destruction of the temple makes a lot of intuitive sense in a way. Something to think about. Sometimes it just a matter of getting an idea and then digging through the surviving Patristic references.

I wonder whether people think that these 'plays' were put on every Sunday or at Easter. Might help explain the rest of the letter.

[DCHindley]

the Passion Play suggestion is very interesting. "observant Jew" not so much. but thank you for the value you contribute to the forum. seriously

As the letters stand, Paul seems to both love AND hate the Law at the same time. You know I don't think the Pauline letters make much sense as they stand. I generally do not subscribe to the view that Paul (as evidenced by what the texts currently say, no matter how few one wants to consider "authentic") must have been an inspired and/or rhetorical genius to produce this seemingly conflicting mess.

If he was such a rhetorical genius, as suggested by Hans Dieter Betz, "The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians" (NTS 21-3, Apr 1975, 353-379), then why would the author of 2 Peter have thought his letters were so "hard to understand"? Nobody today can make coherent sense of them as they stand.

There are many references to his fidelity to and reverence for Judean Law. which are usually immediately cancelled by diatribes against it, so it is natural to separate one from the other. They can be stratified so that one part loves the Law, for circumcised Judeans, but entirely unnecessary for gentiles to observe, and another part that touts the doctrine that the death of Jesus Christ created a much better path for gentiles, and even Judeans, to obtain God's approval.

It is not such a stretch to see these two types of literary material as representing (at least) two different authors, and that the original Paul had never so much as heard of Jesus Christ. The later editor(s) thought of nothing but Jesus Christ. I spoke of marketing savvy in another post earlier today (probably not in this thread), so I wonder whether the editor(s) were trying to refashion Paul into their own image. As the gentile remnants of the Jesus the Jewish apocalyptic prophet movement morphed into a Hellenic style mystery/savior cult centered on his person, they may have ran into remnants of gentile groups who had been inspired by Paul's approach (late 1st or early 2nd century CE). The writings of that man ("Paul") were subsequently adopted, and adapted, by the Jesus cult so as to make it attractive to those gentiles. I never said it was a "good" adaption.

DCH

[Stephan Huller]

Yes all good points. Where I begin to sound a little like mountainman is that I think the difficulty to understand part comes in is that the editor of the material DELIBERATELY made the text ambiguous and hard to understand.

the author of 2 Peter have thought his letters were so "hard to understand"?

I always go back to the expansion of the Ignatian correspondences as the necessary context for our present edition of the Pauline epistles.

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/p/sho ... ho-is.html

It was the first thing I ever 'discovered' in the Patristic writings. It accounted for my interest in Marcion (not the other way around as some might think). The Syriac text was expanded into the present Greek forum and the longer Greek was a further expansion still. I think the Pauline corpus developed the same way and the 'difficulty to understand' part was deliberately cultivated.

Why so? Because I think the idea was (a) the NT was already hidden and long before the Irenaean/Catholic tradition presbyters were just citing in 'patches' in liturgy and (b) the argument we see so often in Tertullian and even Irenaeus was simply to 'prove' that the apostle 'liked' the Demiurge, the ruler of the world, and the religion which allegedly always recognized god in this form - Judaism.

Of all the Palestinian religious forms Samaritanism and Christianity lagged or resisted acknowledging monarchianism. The Jews had their headstart because they were pretty much devastated after the Bar Kochba revolt. When they finally reconstituted themselves it is no wonder that R Judah is 'credited' with affirming or identifying the Jewish god explicitly with the 'cosmocrator' = Caesar.

So back to our original point. The new Church kept citing the NT in the manner that had been done in the past and still is carried out in the Roman Catholic tradition i.e. with no 'Bible' in the hands of the parish and the priest just making allusions to a book which is 'hidden' in a storage vault, but if someone were to argue that Paul or Mark believed this or that the priest could counter - 'well if that's so why does he cite the Psalms or Isaiah?' etc.

This is how gospel and apostle were used and are still used today in those traditions that are truly ancient. But there is a cynicism here too. It is as if the person editing didn't have to reach a logical or credible threshold to 'prove his point.' I think that after the persecutions of the original tradition in 177 CE the Roman state actively supported these 'reform' efforts (as they did in Samaritan and Jewish communities around the same time in parallel but distinct ways). This 'stupid' canon with four gospels, and the various other texts was imposed on the communities and used to end arguments. But none of this has any real legitimacy to help decide what or how Christianity developed before the latter Antonines.

[DCHindley]

"(RSV Act 26:24) your great learning is turning you mad."

DCH

I always go back to the expansion of the Ignatian correspondences as the necessary context for our present edition of the Pauline epistles.

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/p/sho ... ho-is.html

It was the first thing I ever 'discovered' in the Patristic writings. It accounted for my interest in Marcion (not the other way around as some might think). The Syriac text was expanded into the present Greek forum and the longer Greek was a further expansion still. I think the Pauline corpus developed the same way and the 'difficulty to understand' part was deliberately cultivated.

Why so? Because I think the idea was (a) the NT was already hidden and long before the Irenaean/Catholic tradition presbyters were just citing in 'patches' in liturgy and (b) the argument we see so often in Tertullian and even Irenaeus was simply to 'prove' that the apostle 'liked' the Demiurge, the ruler of the world, and the religion which allegedly always recognized god in this form - Judaism.

Of all the Palestinian religious forms Samaritanism and Christianity lagged or resisted acknowledging monarchianism. The Jews had their headstart because they were pretty much devastated after the Bar Kochba revolt. When they finally reconstituted themselves it is no wonder that R Judah is 'credited' with affirming or identifying the Jewish god explicitly with the 'cosmocrator' = Caesar.

So back to our original point. The new Church kept citing the NT in the manner that had been done in the past and still is carried out in the Roman Catholic tradition i.e. with no 'Bible' in the hands of the parish and the priest just making allusions to a book which is 'hidden' in a storage vault, but if someone were to argue that Paul or Mark believed this or that the priest could counter - 'well if that's so why does he cite the Psalms or Isaiah?' etc.

This is how gospel and apostle were used and are still used today in those traditions that are truly ancient. But there is a cynicism here too. It is as if the person editing didn't have to reach a logical or credible threshold to 'prove his point.' I think that after the persecutions of the original tradition in 177 CE the Roman state actively supported these 'reform' efforts (as they did in Samaritan and Jewish communities around the same time in parallel but distinct ways). This 'stupid' canon with four gospels, and the various other texts was imposed on the communities and used to end arguments. But none of this has any real legitimacy to help decide what or how Christianity developed before the latter Antonines.