to Neil,
Twisting the evidence?
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. - Galatians 6:14
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. -- 1 Corinthians 2:2
There is a difference between "offence" and "embarrassment". They have different meanings and it is wrong to conflate them.
I covered that already: Paul was overlaying the embarrassing crucifixion by suggesting some redemptive value of it, going against the grain, that is against the negative perception of Jews & Gentiles about Christ crucified.
Here are the verses in the Pauline epistles where there is an occurrence of 'skandalon' (as in Galatians 5:11):
Rom 9:33 "As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of
offence ['skandalon']: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
Rom 11:9 "And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a
stumblingblock ['skandalon'] and a recompence unto them:"
Rom 14:13 "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an
occasion to fall ['skandalon'] in his brother's way."
Rom 16:17 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
offences ['skandalon'] contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a
stumblingblock ['skandalon'], and unto the Greeks foolishness;"
Gal 5:11 "And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the
offence ['skandalon'] of the cross ceased."
I do not see where 'skandalon' would refer to (as you wrote): "The offence was over the significance of the crucifixion -- what Paul said it meant for the Law.".
'skandalon' is always negative, as bad and detrimental.
For Gal 5:11 (RSV "But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed") the overall meaning of the verse would be: if Paul preached orthodox Judaism, then the "scandal"/offence/stumblingblock about a Christ crucified would not be part of his preaching (because Jews --and Paul as a hypothetical conventional Jew-- would not think a Christ could be crucified).
I use the term primary evidence to refer to concrete, material evidence situated in the time and place in question. Coins, for example, official public monuments.
A Jewish peasant, preacher and credited to be healer, would not be expected to be depicted in coins and monuments during or soon after his lifetime.
If Paul thought that crucifixion of a messiah was an embarrassment because Jews thought a messiah could never be crucified then we would expect Paul to make arguments at some point addressing that concern. He doesn't. He nowhere attempts to address a belief that a messiah could not possibly be crucified. But he does address the controversy over his teaching that the crucifixion of the messiah meant an end to the law for salvation for gentiles. That's where the offence was.
Paul did not have to make arguments at some point addressing that concern, because he superimposes/transforms Jesus' demise (shameful death) with the concept of a glorious crucifixion for salvation of all.
But he did regardless: Christ could be crucified because that enables salvation for the believers:
1Co 1:18 "For the word of the cross is
folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
Cordially, Bernard