Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Galatians 3:1 ---

οἷς κατ' ὀφθαλμοὺς
before whose eyes

Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
Jesus Christ

προεγράφη
was written in the past

ἐσταυρωμένος;
having been crucified


(To Ben,)

It may seem a bit awkward to our ears, but a literal translation is entirely feasible.

For me, Paul’s use of the very same term (προεγράφη) in Romans 15:4 is the best evidence we have. I doubt we’re going to agree on this --- reasonable minds can come to different conclusions.

From the opening post ---

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Galatians 3.1: You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified [προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος]?

Could it be that this "public portrayal" of Jesus Christ as crucified is actually a posture adopted during worship meetings? (Modern charismatic or Pentecostal Christian adopt all sorts of symbolic postures during their worship, and I have seen my fair share of outstretched hands during such meetings.) Could it be that Paul taught them songs and worship postures, which were the public display he refers to here?

The Greek προεγράφη is the wrong word to describe symbolic worship postures such as outstretched hands.

The root –γρά—, as in grapho, is used for marks upon a substrate --- as in writing, engraving or painting. It can indicate most any kind of medium on most any kind of substrate --- writing of words or symbols with ink on paper --- engraving on stone --- painting on paper, canvas, wood or plaster --- perhaps even writing or drawing with ones finger in the dirt.

The justification for translating the term in Galatians 3:1 as “publicly portrayed” comes from the use of the word for a posted written public notice or a displayed painting. (I think that translation is imprecise.)

However, the term is not typically used for human physical postures of imitation or portrayal. Perhaps a Greek verb containing the root ---μιμ---, as in the English “mimic”, would better describe the kind of activity you are suggesting.

robert j wrote:From the opening post ---

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Galatians 3.1: You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified [προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος]?

Could it be that this "public portrayal" of Jesus Christ as crucified is actually a posture adopted during worship meetings? (Modern charismatic or Pentecostal Christian adopt all sorts of symbolic postures during their worship, and I have seen my fair share of outstretched hands during such meetings.) Could it be that Paul taught them songs and worship postures, which were the public display he refers to here?

The Greek προεγράφη is the wrong word to describe symbolic worship postures such as outstretched hands.

The root –γρά—, as in grapho, is used for marks upon a substrate --- as in writing, engraving or painting. It can indicate most any kind of medium on most any kind of substrate --- writing of words or symbols with ink on paper --- engraving on stone --- painting on paper, canvas, wood or plaster --- perhaps even writing or drawing with ones finger in the dirt.

The justification for translating the term in Galatians 3:1 as “publically portrayed” comes from the use of the word for a posted written public notice or a displayed painting. (I think that translation is imprecise.)

However, the term is not typically used for human physical postures of imitation or portrayal. Perhaps a Greek verb containing the root ---μιμ---, as in the English “mimic”, would better describe the kind of activity you are suggesting.

You may be right about that. I was treating my reading as more literal than the standard interpretation, but there may be an element of the metaphorical in mine, as well.

Ben wrote (in response to me citing Stegall and thinking that he seems to see it like me):

In Galatians 3:1, the phrase "was publically portrayed" is one word in Greek, prographo. This verb is in the aorist tense and indicative mood, indicating a past tense portrayal of Christ as One who stands crucified. Paul is referring to the message he preached to these Galatians in the past while they were unbelievers. This was the same message referred to in Galatians 1:8-9. What message had they now taken their eyes off of? Grace? Justification through faith alone? No, not merely these things, but the work of Christ on the cross from which God's grace and justification flows. This is why the entire section in Galatians 3:1-14 that deals so heavily with justification begins with a riveting rebuke to get their focus back on the cross that Paul initially preached to them (3:1).

You were translating it as "was written before", were you not? Stegall is apparently taking the other option, the one I am pushing, "was publically portrayed". He is then applying this word, not to the penning of the prophecies in the Hebrew scriptures (hundreds of years earlier), but rather to Paul's preaching itself (just recently, before the Galatians' very eyes). This is how I think most exegetes interpret the word: they basically make it a metaphor for preaching, which is fine. (You are agreeing with Stegall's interpretation, but you originally disagreed with his translation.)

I don't know about translating, but the sense of Gal. 3:1 at least seems to have something to do with the OT by my (and robert j's) reckoning, and I'm still picturing the scene referred to in Gal. 3:1 as being something like Acts 18:28, or even better, Acts 8:30-34:

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?”

So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.”

The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

This is how I take Stegall's statement that Gal. 3:1 was intended "to get their focus back on the cross that Paul initially preached to them," a preaching that (in my view) is ultimately based on the OT (as per Rom. 15:4).

Ben also gave some examples of "prographo" in pagan writings that could refer to things that aren't written.

Plutarch, Life of Camillus 39.3: However, he tried to ward off the threatening evils. Having learned the day on which the tribunes intended to propose their law, he issued proclamation [προέγραψε] making it a day of general muster, and summoned the people from the forum into the Campus Martius, with threats of heavy fines upon the disobedient.

Demosthenes, Against Conon 3: Two years ago I went out to Panactum, where we had been ordered [προγραφείσης] to do garrison duty.

But it seems like both of these examples could be based on something written, since there are written proclamations (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamat ... aronet.JPG) and given the setting (the Senate) in the first one ("issued proclamation"), and I reckon there could have been some sort of "paperwork" involved in the second one ("we had been ordered to do garrison duty").

John2 wrote:I don't know about translating, but the sense of Gal. 3:1 at least seems to have something to do with the OT by my (and robert j's) reckoning....

It very well may. I am just saying that it would not be because of the verb. The only writing going on in the verse, if the verb means what you think it means, happened hundreds of years before the Galatians were born. Therefore, it is unlikely that Paul is saying that it was before their eyes that Jesus was (fore)written.

Ben also gave some examples of "prographo" in pagan writings that could refer to things that aren't written.

....

But it seems like both of these examples could be based on something written, since there are written proclamations (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamat ... aronet.JPG) and given the setting (the Senate) in the first one ("issued proclamation"), and I reckon there could have been some sort of "paperwork" involved in the second one ("we had been ordered to do garrison duty").

Can you imagine a usage of a verb like "proclaim publicly" that you could not envision as involving writing? If you are dead set on seeing writing in the verb, then it is easy to find a way. Sure, the commands could have been written; and sure, the proclamation could have been written; and sure, Paul could have pulled out a chalkboard in Galatia and written "Jesus is/was crucified" in big block letters. But is that really what the verb means?

Think of the English verb "conscript". Do you envision writing as the principal thing involved in that verb? If I ride into town on my state-issued stallion and force a few peasants to follow me into battle, without writing a single thing on paper, is that a conscription or not? It certainly is in my book, and it is in the common usage, too (check the dictionaries). And yet the word "script" is sitting right there in the word, plain as day. The origins of that word of course have to do with writing, but after a while that original meaning drifted away, so that now the principal meaning has nothing to do with writing, and certainly does not require it.

robert j wrote:Galatians 3:1 ---

οἷς κατ' ὀφθαλμοὺς
before whose eyes

Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
Jesus Christ

προεγράφη
was written in the past

ἐσταυρωμένος;
having been crucified

It may seem a bit awkward to our ears, but a literal translation is entirely feasible.

For me, Paul’s use of the very same term (προεγράφη) in Romans 15:4 is the best evidence we have.

There is a further and significant implication involved here ---

In addition to Paul’s use of προεγράφη to very clearly refer to the Jewish scriptures in Romans 15:4, Paul used another from of the same verb, γέγραπται, about 30 times --- it is written/has been written --- every time referring to the scriptures.

Certainly one might present reasonable arguments for a different interpretation of Galatians 3:1, but at the same time, I think the interpretation I have presented here represents an entirely reasonable and feasible solution.

But with this translation and interpretation of Galatians 3:1 --- with Paul reminding the Galatians of how they had been shown in the ancient scriptures Jesus Christ having been crucified (ἐσταυρωμένος, verb in the perfect, participle, middle or passive, nominative, masculine, singular) --- there is a significant implication. This is not a prediction or prophesy of a future event.

That is, then, in Paul’s system the death of Jesus was a done-deal, a fait accompli, sometime deep in the scriptural past.

robert j wrote:Galatians 3:1, but at the same time, I think the interpretation I have presented here represents an entirely reasonable and feasible solution.

But with this translation and interpretation of Galatians 3:1 --- with Paul reminding the Galatians of how they had been shown in the ancient scriptures Jesus Christ having been crucified (ἐσταυρωμένος, verb in the perfect, participle, middle or passive, nominative, masculine, singular) --- there is a significant implication. This is not a prediction or prophesy of a future event.

That is, then, in Paul’s system the death of Jesus was a done-deal, a fait accompli, sometime deep in the scriptural past.

Where is the crucifixion of Jesus found in the ancient scriptures?

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

iskander wrote:

robert j wrote:Galatians 3:1, but at the same time, I think the interpretation I have presented here represents an entirely reasonable and feasible solution.

But with this translation and interpretation of Galatians 3:1 --- with Paul reminding the Galatians of how they had been shown in the ancient scriptures Jesus Christ having been crucified (ἐσταυρωμένος, verb in the perfect, participle, middle or passive, nominative, masculine, singular) --- there is a significant implication. This is not a prediction or prophesy of a future event.

That is, then, in Paul’s system the death of Jesus was a done-deal, a fait accompli, sometime deep in the scriptural past.

Where is the crucifixion of Jesus found in the ancient scriptures?

Do you really have to ask that? I’m not going to spend much time here, except to provide just a few examples.

Using Deuteronomy 21:23 ---



The author of gMark, by the necessity of his tale of a recent Jesus, had to treat the scriptural passages as predictions, as prophesies. Just one example from gMark is his use Psalm 22 to help construct his passion narrative.

And gJohn using Zechariah 12:10 (Masoretic), also as a prophesy ---

Even Acts reveals scriptural dependence ---

There is nearly an endless well of OT passages applied to Jesus in general, and more than a few applied to his death, but I suspect you might dismiss each outright or argue they are indeed, in reality, scriptural predictions of future events of Jesus. Fine, that is a popular solution.

As I have cited before, for the most part, I agree with this statement from Earl Doherty ---

“Scripture did not contain any full-blown crucified Messiah, but it did contain all the required ingredients. Jewish midrash was the process by which the Christian recipe was put together and baked into the doctrine ….” (Doherty, Earl, Jesus Neither God Nor Man, 2009, p. 87).

robert j wrote:

iskander wrote:

robert j wrote:Galatians 3:1, but at the same time, I think the interpretation I have presented here represents an entirely reasonable and feasible solution.

But with this translation and interpretation of Galatians 3:1 --- with Paul reminding the Galatians of how they had been shown in the ancient scriptures Jesus Christ having been crucified (ἐσταυρωμένος, verb in the perfect, participle, middle or passive, nominative, masculine, singular) --- there is a significant implication. This is not a prediction or prophesy of a future event.

That is, then, in Paul’s system the death of Jesus was a done-deal, a fait accompli, sometime deep in the scriptural past.

Where is the crucifixion of Jesus found in the ancient scriptures?

Do you really have to ask that? I’m not going to spend much time here, except to provide a few examples of what could fill a large volume.

Using Deuteronomy 21:23 ---

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)

… that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3)

The author of gMark, by the necessity of his tale of a recent Jesus, had to treat the scriptural passages as predictions, as prophesies. Just one example from gMark is his use Psalm 22 to help construct his passion narrative.

And gJohn using Zechariah 12:10 (Masoretic), also as a prophesy ---

And again, another Scripture says: "They will look on the One they have pierced." (John 19:37)

Even Acts reveals scriptural dependence ---

According to Paul’s custom, he went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the scriptures, opening and setting forth that it was necessary for the Christ to have suffered and to have risen from the dead, and (saying) that this Jesus whom I proclaim to you is the Christ.” (Acts 17:2-3)

There is nearly an endless well of examples to provide, but I suspect you might dismiss each outright or argue they are indeed, in reality, scriptural predictions of future events of Jesus. Fine, that is a popular solution.

As I have cited before, for the most part, I agree with this statement from Earl Doherty ---

“Scripture did not contain any full-blown crucified Messiah, but it did contain all the required ingredients. Jewish midrash was the process by which the Christian recipe was put together and baked into the doctrine ….” (Doherty, Earl, Jesus Neither God Nor Man, 2009, p. 87).

Are those examples of ancient scriptures? The OT may be interpreted in a creative manner, but those interpretations are no evidence of Jesus having been crucified in ancient scriptures..

Doherty is irrelevant to the meaning of gal 3:1 as in this thread

PS go back to whatever you were doing and thanks .