• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How would an Historical JC be Defined?

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
No doubt, and we have no evidence of any Jesus of Nazareth followers until well after Josephus writes about Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. We have no reason to believe that Josephus was referring to a Bible Jesus that no one heard of yet. Our first non New Testament writer/follower, Iraneus, that mentions Jesus does not arrive on the scene until 117CE.
Josephus never states that Jesus is the son of Damneus (at least not the Jesus we are talking about). If you have evidence of such, please present it.

Also, Paul, and the Gospel writers were before Josephus, so we have that evidence.

And actually, Paul, and the Gospel writers were not writing the New Testament at that time. Neither were they following it. The reason being that there was no New Testament. The authors most likely never even met each other, as there is no evidence for such.

To disregard a whole set of works simply because they were later compiled (long after the writer's deaths) into a collection is not just illogical, it is unfounded.

Paul wrote of a heavenly Christ that may or may not have lived on earth at some time in his distant past. He drew from his ancient scriptures, and claimed to have visions, revelations of Christ.
Except that Paul mentions that Jesus was born of a woman, was a Hebrew just like him. Had disciples here on this earth, as well as a brother (actually brothers). This isn't the distant past, or a heavenly Christ. This is a Jesus who just recently died, and was here on earth.

If you want to argue such a stance, you need much more evidence then what you have provided, which is none.
 

steeltoes

Junior member
Josephus never states that Jesus is the son of Damneus (at least not the Jesus we are talking about). If you have evidence of such, please present it.

Read the passage for yourself. Context is a *****, I know.

Also, Paul, and the Gospel writers were before Josephus, so we have that evidence.

And actually, Paul, and the Gospel writers were not writing the New Testament at that time. Neither were they following it. The reason being that there was no New Testament. The authors most likely never even met each other, as there is no evidence for such.

To disregard a whole set of works simply because they were later compiled (long after the writer's deaths) into a collection is not just illogical, it is unfounded.

Except that Paul mentions that Jesus was born of a woman, was a Hebrew just like him. Had disciples here on this earth, as well as a brother (actually brothers). This isn't the distant past, or a heavenly Christ. This is a Jesus who just recently died, and was here on earth.

If you want to argue such a stance, you need much more evidence then what you have provided, which is none.

Good to know that Paul stated that Jesus was born of a woman, how else would historians know? :rolleyes:
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
From what I have read, I reckon that the working Jews of Galilee all despised the semi-Jews of the cities as traitors and betrayers of them and their God.
There would have been some animosity, as Josephus even describes (the ransacking of cities in Galilee during the Jewish revolt for one). It wasn't necessarily that they saw them as traitors, but that they saw them as being part of the reason they were being oppressed.

However, even for such ideas, they would have had to seen the cities. And seeing that Sepphoris was only a short walk from Nazareth, it is almost inconceivable that Jesus would not have wandered there.
No..... they placed his upbringing in Nazareth. When he started his ministry he seems to have been based around Galilee and possibly living in Capernaum. He had plenty of work..... far far away from the cities.
The ministry of Jesus only lasted a few years of his life. Up until that time (probably some 30 years), he seems to have been in Nazareth. And if he was an artisan, as claimed, then he would almost have had to visit Sepphoris. What he did during his ministry really does not necessarily reflect on his up bringing.
Yes..... long after Jesus had died, they wrote gentile scripture in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic, so I'm told by most of the historians I have read and read about.
What historians are you thinking of? John P. Meier, in his work A Marginal Jew, vol.1, states: "Probably the demands of business and trade, as well as the general need to communicate witht he larger world, made some use of Greek necessary at times, even for conservative Galilean peasants." He is using the studies of Martin Hengel in order to come to this conclusion (and Hengel agrees with the basic premise).
Yes.... it would have, but there is every possibility that he worked to supply the farming and fishing communities around Galilee.
We have to look at what is more probable though. We have Sepphoris just a few miles away. Jesus is called an artisan. Would he go to a city where he would have a higher chance of getting work, or would he travel around Galilee, which was dangerous (especially since he'd have to haul around his tools, and money), to hopefully get some work at a little village, where it is most likely there was already some local artisan working or they just couldn't afford to hire someone?

He had to go where the money was. And the money was primarily in the city.
No....the publicans' manager's needed to speak Greek.
Anyone doing commerce would most likely have had to speak a little Greek, as shown in the quote from Meier above.
If the scriptures refer to Jesus as a Tekton (for Gentile readers) long after his death, does mean he spoke Greek?
Of course it doesn't mean he spoke Greek, the same way that English translations doesn't mean he spoke English. That wasn't my point here at all. My point, in what you quoted, was that unless someone knows Greek, they shouldn't be arguing the Greek.
We need to dwell on the simple, because the complicated is far beyond our reach within this subject, I propose. The historians (mostly) agree that Jesus was born, lived, caused a fracas in the Temple, and was executed. Full stop. Very simple. Now....... where would you like to go from there? Keep it simple!
Not really. We can look at the event in the Temple. We can look at it in a simple manner. The idea we then get is that Jesus became angry and threw a fit. That hardly tells us what actually happened. It wasn't just Jesus causing a fracas in the Temple, it was part of his message. With out wanting to go in depth, we miss everything that lies beneath.
I'm sorry..... I made a mistake. I think I meant Jesus would not have spoken to his people in .... GREEK! I'm sorry.
Jesus would have spoken primarily in Aramaic. However, that doesn't mean he couldn't speak Greek.
He could not afford to be 'clear-direct' about some issues. That could have got him killed much more quickly. But he was very clear about much of his worldly guidance.
He spoke largely in parables. Parable are not clear.
His 11.5 month ministry, based mostly around his 'own', seems straightforward simple.......... once the ET is stripped away.
How do you know it was 11.5 months of ministry? Scholars can't even agree on that, and in fact, there is a tendency to see it as having lasted closer to 3 years. Not really straightforward.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Read the passage for yourself. Context is a *****, I know.
I have read the passage concerning Jesus and James, and never does it say that Jesus is the son of anyone. So I assume you must be referring to something else. If you can't provide the passage, then I have to assume that you are mistaken.
Good to know that Paul stated that Jesus was born of a woman, how else would historians know? :rolleyes:
It is nice to see that you are not actually able to provide a defense for your position, and instead want to only criticize one thing that Paul said (while not understanding why). As far as I can see, your position lacks any real substance.
 

steeltoes

Junior member
I have read the passage concerning Jesus and James, and never does it say that Jesus is the son of anyone. So I assume you must be referring to something else. If you can't provide the passage, then I have to assume that you are mistaken.
It is nice to see that you are not actually able to provide a defense for your position, and instead want to only criticize one thing that Paul said (while not understanding why). As far as I can see, your position lacks any real substance.

I don't have a position, I just read passages for what they are and I find it humorous that you won't read Josephus and admit that Jesus, the son of Damneus became high priest as a result of his brother James being executed, that it was he that was called Christ because he would have been anointed. You, being a Christian have a different Christ in mind and so you read it the way you have been indoctrinated. People see their Christ in bagels and tree trunks as well.

As far as Paul goes, he writes woo woo and again it's Christians that see the gospel Jesus in everything they read even though Paul died before the gospel Jesus came about and has no knowledge of him. You call Paul's woo woo evidence as if everything you read is evidence of a gospel Jesus when there is no such thing but noise.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I don't have a position, I just read passages for what they are and I find it humorous that you won't read Josephus and admit that Jesus, the son of Damneus became high priest as a result of his brother James being executed, that it was he that was called Christ because he would have been anointed. You, being a Christian have a different Christ in mind and so you read it the way you have been indoctrinated. People see their Christ in bagels and tree trunks as well.
Why not present the passage here? Show me how I am wrong instead of referring to some passage that says what you claim it does. I don't see why it is so hard for you to present evidence for the passage you are talking about.
As far as Paul goes, he writes woo woo and again it's Christians that see the gospel Jesus in everything they read even though Paul died before the gospel Jesus came about and has no knowledge of him. You call Paul's woo woo evidence as if everything you read is evidence of a gospel Jesus when there is no such thing but noise.
Show that Paul died before Jesus came about. Present some evidence for what you have stated, instead of basically saying nothing.
 

steeltoes

Junior member
Why not present the passage here? Show me how I am wrong instead of referring to some passage that says what you claim it does. I don't see why it is so hard for you to present evidence for the passage you are talking about.

The passage is there for anyone to read, however I am well aware that Christian sites only present a small portion of the passage in question so here it is in full.

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
The passage is there for anyone to read, however I am well aware that Christian sites only present a small portion of the passage in question so here it is in full.

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
There are two different Jesuss here. One of them is the so called Christ. The second Jesus, is the son of Damneus. The passage never states that they are the same person.

If they were the same Jesus, Josephus would not identify them so differently. Jesus was after all, a common name, and since people only went by first names, they had to be identified by a sibling, or some title.

There is nothing linking Jesus the son of Damneus to being the Christ (which is a proper title here, and does not equate to anointed) or to James.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
The Jerusalem group may have questioned Paul a bit, and were critical, but I think the fact that they never actually expel him, or just push him away, suggests that they supported him to a point.
We don't actually know how the relationship went from there. What we do know is that the Vatican sees Peter as the first leader of the church, but it was Paul's vision of Christianity that seems to have survived, not Peter's. That is, despite this early drama in which Peter is portrayed as insisting that Gentile converts adhere to Jewish law, the "new covenant" allows a break with OT traditions. And the widely-circulated gospel with Peter's name on it (although we do not know if it had anything to do with him) was suppressed because of its association with docetism. Indeed, we have no record of any kind of what Peter or James taught, but docetism seems to lend itself more to a mythicist interpretation of Jesus than the canonical gospels do. That is, it entailed a doctrine that the body of Jesus was not actually physical. So the name of Peter remained revered as the founder of Roman Catholicism, but nobody actually preserved anything he said. Instead, they preserved some letters from his rival, Paul. Very strange, IMO.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
We don't actually know how the relationship went from there. .

Exactly.

We dont even know if the Jerusalem sect was Pauls invention so that he could build his apostleship. He wanted to be a real apostle "sent forth" in a bad way! and what a better way then to place himself as one with the real Apostles. Of course people knew there were disagreements with Pauls view and those within Judaism of the real Apostles, so Paul points out the obvious arguement they would have had.

Paul tells us he had issues with real Judaism instead of his semi Hellenistic version, does he not?

Its my imagination I freely admit, but what isnt imagination is that the real Jews would have looked at the murderer who killed their sect leaders with despise.

Yes Real Jews sitting down to a pig dinner with the man who murdered their leaders makes perfect sense and plausibility :slap: I dont buy Pauls version.

but nobody actually preserved anything he said. Instead, they preserved some letters from his rival, Paul. Very strange, IMO.

I doubt a illiterate Peter was responsible for any writing. The apocryphal writing of Peter are best viewed as how wide and diverse the early movment was.


The reason more then anything else that certain writings were canonized over others was popularity as the movement evolved within Hellenism.

You know why Matthew is first in the NT? it was the most popular in its day.


I view Peter as dependant on the existing gospels anyway and a later book .
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I have a verse from Galatians that I've neglected to post thus far because I wanted to watch the debate play out.

If Paul didn't speak of a mythical figure, but an actual human crucified in Jerusalem, why write this?-

Galatians 3.1 You foolish Galatians! Who has deceived you that you do not obey the truth, seeing as it is before your eyes Christ was shown forth crucified?

Jesus was crucified before the Galatians in Galatia? How very odd!
 

steeltoes

Junior member
There are two different Jesuss here. One of them is the so called Christ. The second Jesus, is the son of Damneus. The passage never states that they are the same person.

If they were the same Jesus, Josephus would not identify them so differently. Jesus was after all, a common name, and since people only went by first names, they had to be identified by a sibling, or some title.

There is nothing linking Jesus the son of Damneus to being the Christ (which is a proper title here, and does not equate to anointed) or to James.

You are indoctrinated to read these names and jump to conclusions as to who they were. Jesus, son of Damneus was made high priest and in the process would have been anointed, therefore could have been called Christ. There is no need to suggest otherwise unless you have a personal need to.

Long after this event took place gospel writers were still writing that Jesus' brothers were non believers. Literary Christian tradition does not even support you but I fully understand where you are coming from, you have adopted the position that Jesus is historical so regardless of what was written by gospel writers the impulse is to jump to conclusions, to make unsupported assumptions, to see YOUR Jesus where ever possible.

Taken out of context, taking the one liner only into account sounds good, too good to be true however, and that's what these Josephus passages are, too good to be true.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
I doubt a illiterate Peter was responsible for any writing. The apocryphal writing of Peter are best viewed as how wide and diverse the early movment was.
You doubt that such an important leader of a messianic cult with a doctrinal message was incapable of employing a scribe? Not even Paul penned his own letters. His secretary Tertius took dictation. Surely all of these ancient illiterates were capable of talking to people who could write. If they had a message to deliver, they would be anxious for their words to be recorded. Lacking dictaphones, they used slaves and others who were willing to do their bidding.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
We don't actually know how the relationship went from there. What we do know is that the Vatican sees Peter as the first leader of the church, but it was Paul's vision of Christianity that seems to have survived, not Peter's. That is, despite this early drama in which Peter is portrayed as insisting that Gentile converts adhere to Jewish law, the "new covenant" allows a break with OT traditions. And the widely-circulated gospel with Peter's name on it (although we do not know if it had anything to do with him) was suppressed because of its association with docetism. Indeed, we have no record of any kind of what Peter or James taught, but docetism seems to lend itself more to a mythicist interpretation of Jesus than the canonical gospels do. That is, it entailed a doctrine that the body of Jesus was not actually physical. So the name of Peter remained revered as the founder of Roman Catholicism, but nobody actually preserved anything he said. Instead, they preserved some letters from his rival, Paul. Very strange, IMO.
We may not have exact data on what happened with the Jerusalem group and Paul, but there are suggestions. One of the keys is that Paul seems to be very careful to not attack the pillars. This is interesting as Paul is ready to attack many other individuals, even some with the Jerusalem group; however, when it comes to the pillars, he dials it down a lot.

There is also the matter of the collection in which Paul is told to get when the Jerusalem group "ordains" his mission (in Galatians). This is something that Paul mentions a number of times (I believe it is 2 Corinthians that this comes up the most), and that he deems to be quite important.

Acts also mentions the collection, but puts a spin on it. When Acts records Paul going back to Jerusalem, before he is ultimately arrested, the collection all of a sudden vanishes. It could be that Luke is just making up a story, as the credibility of Acts when it comes to Paul is sketchy. It is generally agreed that if Paul doesn't mention it as well, Acts is just speculation. However, if this incident is correct, that something happened with the collection, such as it was rejected as some scholars have suggested, it would give a unique insight into the tension. If Acts is right, it could be that the tension between Paul and the Jerusalem group, in the end, became too much. However, again, Acts is sketchy. But either way, the fact that Paul takes this order from the Jerusalem group so seriously would suggest that he is trying to keep a connection.

Another scholar has suggested though (I want to say it was Bart Ehrman, but I could be mistaken) that the collection was actually part of a deal struct between Paul and the Jerusalem group. The deal was basically that Paul would be "ordained" or supported by the group, but Paul had to obey the rulings of the group, and take up a collection from his congregants.

It is interesting though that nothing comes down from James or Peter (at least nothing that really sticks). While it is probable (especially for Peter) that they were illiterate, that should not have prevented them from having someone preserve what they were saying. And it could be that they in fact had some writings. It could be that they were destroyed when Jerusalem was destroyed. After the fall of Jerusalem, there really is no more mention of this group. It could also be that if the tradition is correct, that Peter was martyred by Nero, and we have Josephus reporting the death of James, that after the pillars fell, the whole group did. It is a very interesting though that what we do have is largely Paul or attributed to Paul.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
It is interesting though that nothing comes down from James or Peter (at least nothing that really sticks). While it is probable (especially for Peter) that they were illiterate, that should not have prevented them from having someone preserve what they were saying. And it could be that they in fact had some writings. It could be that they were destroyed when Jerusalem was destroyed. After the fall of Jerusalem, there really is no more mention of this group. It could also be that if the tradition is correct, that Peter was martyred by Nero, and we have Josephus reporting the death of James, that after the pillars fell, the whole group did. It is a very interesting though that what we do have is largely Paul or attributed to Paul.
It isn't just that, however. We have the very striking fact that church doctrine followed Paul's path, which broke with Jewish law. According to his own words, Peter preached against that. All of these people had incomes that depended on their credibility as leaders in the movement. I can see where they might have reached some temporary accommodation that fell apart. Or maybe not. All of this is way too dependent on speculation to merit the kind of steadfast credibility that scholars give to the fragmentary historical record that comes down to us. We simply must acknowledge the obvious efforts made by people in those times to shape the record to confirm their doctrinal assertions. And a key part of the doctrine became that Jesus Christ was a real historical person who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, not the Jews. The custodians of the record were aware of future generations, and they were very consciously manipulating the record that was transmitted to us--either through neglect of alternative perspectives or outright suppression, modification, and censorship. Too much of the historicist argument is based on a myopic view of the data that is being analyzed.
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
You are indoctrinated to read these names and jump to conclusions as to who they were. Jesus, son of Damneus was made high priest and in the process would have been anointed, therefore could have been called Christ. There is no need to suggest otherwise unless you have a personal need to.
How am I indoctrinated? This stuff was never taught to me in church. It was never brought up in Bible studies or the like. And quite honestly, I have rejected much of what the "Church" has taught. To try to dismiss me as being indoctrinated is foolish.

The conclusion you are making is based off of a misunderstanding of the culture, and the language. People were identified by others, or by titles. There weren't last names. Since many people had the same name then, in order to identify them, they did so by naming a family member (either one that was important, or a father), or some title. And looking of Josephus, he names many different people named Jesus. After all, it was a highly common name. Just because to people share the name Jesus, that does not make them the same person.

Now, for the way that Josephus phrases this section, it is apparent that to different people with the name Jesus are being talked about. If they were the same person, Josephus would not need to identify each in specific manners. Either Josephus would have identified them in the same exact manner repeatedly, or, as we see with James (and more commonly), by simply using his first name. After all, he was already identified, and there was no reason to identify him again as the reader knows who it is.

Going to the actual title, the Greek is 'Ιησου του λεγουμενου Χριστου. It translates to something like Jesus, who is called Christ. The manner in which it is phrased does not allow for the term Christ (which here is clearly a title) to mean anointed. It does not make sense in the context of the phrase as the term Christ is being used as a title.

It is not indoctrination that makes me accept this idea. It is research, and the fact that I know the language, and have done a lot of work on Josephus.
Long after this event took place gospel writers were still writing that Jesus' brothers were non believers. Literary Christian tradition does not even support you but I fully understand where you are coming from, you have adopted the position that Jesus is historical so regardless of what was written by gospel writers the impulse is to jump to conclusions, to make unsupported assumptions, to see YOUR Jesus where ever possible.
How doesn't literary Christian tradition not support what I am saying? At what point does literary Christian tradition deny that Jesus had a brother name James? While yes, the Gospel tradition shows that James was not a follower of Jesus during the life of Jesus, it does show (with Acts) that he became a follower afterwards. Why should that be surprising?

Also, I did not just adopt the position that Jesus is historical. In fact, I spent years thinking that Jesus did not exist. I was a mythicist. After I did actual research on the subject, I then accepted that there was a historical Jesus. Please do not try to comment on my background when you have no idea where I am coming from.
Taken out of context, taking the one liner only into account sounds good, too good to be true however, and that's what these Josephus passages are, too good to be true.
Or, maybe I just actually understand Josephus, the language he wrote in, and the manner in which ancient sources used to distinguish between individuals.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
You doubt that such an important leader of a messianic cult with a doctrinal message was incapable of employing a scribe? Not even Paul penned his own letters. His secretary Tertius took dictation. Surely all of these ancient illiterates were capable of talking to people who could write. If they had a message to deliver, they would be anxious for their words to be recorded. Lacking dictaphones, they used slaves and others who were willing to do their bidding.

How many did Jesus employ?
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I have a verse from Galatians that I've neglected to post thus far because I wanted to watch the debate play out.

If Paul didn't speak of a mythical figure, but an actual human crucified in Jerusalem, why write this?-

Galatians 3.1 You foolish Galatians! Who has deceived you that you do not obey the truth, seeing as it is before your eyes Christ was shown forth crucified?

Jesus was crucified before the Galatians in Galatia? How very odd!

Paul speaking of a historical Jesus? Anyone?^^^
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I have a verse from Galatians that I've neglected to post thus far because I wanted to watch the debate play out.

If Paul didn't speak of a mythical figure, but an actual human crucified in Jerusalem, why write this?-

Galatians 3.1 You foolish Galatians! Who has deceived you that you do not obey the truth, seeing as it is before your eyes Christ was shown forth crucified?

Jesus was crucified before the Galatians in Galatia? How very odd!

Not picking on you but it is your lack of knowledge with Greek, and not first researching it brother ;)

Its all about context.

here is one view, hang on to your shorts :D

Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

(3) It seems especially improbable that the apostle was thinking of the "evil eye" when we consider the entire absence of its mention in the sacred writings. Before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (οῖς κατ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Ξριστὸς προεγράφη ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσταυρωμένος;); to whom, before your very eyes, Jesus Christ had been (literally, was) aforetime (or, openly) set forth crucified (among you)? The genuineness of the words, ἐν ὑμῖν, "among you," is very doubtful. The Revised Greek text omits them. The words, κατ ὀφθαλμούς, "before your very eyes," are very pointed; for the Greek expression, comp. κατὰ πρόσωπον (Galatians 2:11), and Aristoph., 'Ran.,' 625, ἵνα σοι κατ ὀφθαλμοὺς λέγῃ, "that he may say it to your very face." The sense of προεγράφη is much disputed. It is not clear whether the πρὸ is the "before" of time or of place. Of the other passages in the New Testament in which this compound verb occurs, in Romans 15:4 twice, and Ephesians 3:3, πρὸ is certainly, and in Jude 1:4 probably, not so certainly (comp. 1 Macc. 10:36, "enrolled"), "before" of time. In the present passage a reference to the prophecies of the Old Testament seems out of place. It is far more suitable to the connection to suppose that the apostle is referring to his own preaching. Some commentators, retaining the words, ἐν ὑμῖν, connect them with προεγράφη in the sense of "in you," comparing "Christ in you" (Colossians 1:27), and "written in your hearts" (2 Corinthians 3:2); and so render the words thus: "written of, or described, before in you." But such an expression, sufficiently awkward in itself, would further be very unsuitably introduced after the words, "before your very eyes." Supposing we take the πρὸ as of time, there is no satisfactory explanation of the ἐγρὰφη, if understood in the sense of writing, there being no tablet (so to speak) suggested on which the writing could be conceived of as done. Γράφω, it is true, means "describe" in John 1:45 and Romans 10:5; but it is still a description in writing. We are, therefore, driven to assign to the verb the notion of portraying as in a painting, a sense which in Common Greek it certainly does sometimes bear, and which attaches to it in the διαγράφω of Ezekiel 4:1; Ezekiel 8:10 (Septuagint). We thus gain the sense, "had before been set forth or por trayed;" before (that is) the envier assailed you. This same sense, of portraying rather than of writing, would be also the best to give to the verb, supposing the πρὸ to be understood as the "before" of place; which conception of the preposition Bishop Lightfoot contends for, urging the use of the verb προγράφειν, and the nouns πρόγραμμα and προγραφή, with reference to the placards on which public notices were given of political or other matters of business. When, how ever, we consider how partial the apostle is to verbs compounded with πρὸ of time, as is seen in his use of προαιτιάομαι προακούω, προαμαρτάνω προελπίζω προενάρχομαι προεπαγγέλλομαι προτετοιμάζω προευαγγελίζομαι προκαταγγέλλω προκαταρτίζω προκυρόομαι, προπάσχω, not a few of which were probably compounded by himself as he wanted them, it appears highly probable that, to serve the present occasion, he here forms the compound προγράφω in the sense of "portraying before," the compound not existing elsewhere in the same sense. He compares, then, the idea of Christ crucified, presented to his hearers in his preaching, to a portraiture, in which the Redeemer had been so vividly and with such striking effect exhibited to his converts, that it ought in all reason have for ever safeguarded their souls against all danger from teaching of an alien character. If the phrase, ἐν ὑμῖν, be retained, it appears best, with Chrysostom and many others, to understand it as meaning, that St. Paul had presented Christ crucified in such lively colours to their view, that they had, as it were, seen him hanging on the cross in their very midst. The position of ἐσταυρωμένος, disconnected from Ἰησοῦς Ξριστὸς and at the end of the sen tence, gives it intense significance. What the idea of Christ crucified was to his own self, the apostle had just before declared; for him it at once had destroyed all spiritual connection with the ceremonial Law, the Law which bade the crucified One away from itself as accursed, and also by the infinite love to himself which he beheld manifested in Christ crucified for him, had bound him to him by spiritual ties both all-constrain ing and iudissoluble. And such (he means) should have been the effect produced by that idea upon their souls. What envier of their happiness in him could, then, possibly have torn them from him? This same portraiture of "Christ crucified" which he reminds the Galatians he had in those days presented to them, he also, as he tells the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 5:20, 21), had been intent on holding up before the Greeks of Achaia; while, further, he intimates to the Romans, in his Epistle to them, how eager he was to come and at Rome also hold up Christ as him whom God had set forth to be a Propitiation, through faith, by his blood (Romans 1:15, 16; Romans 3:25). Both to the Jew and to the Gentile, both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise, this, emphatically this, was the alone and the sovereign salvation. This picturing forth of the crucified One, however, would hardly from Paul's lips concern itself much with the outward particulars of the passion; it might have been this, in a far greater degree, in St. Peter's presentment of it, who had been himself witness of those sufferings; but Paul, with his habits of thought, as we know them from his writings, who knew Christ as in the spirit rather than as in the flesh, would occupy himself more with the spiritual idea of the cross - its embodiment of perfect meekness and gentleness and self-sacrifice, of humility. of obedience to the Father's will, of love to all mankind, of especial care for his own, and its antagonism to the spirit of Levitical ceremonialism. "Such presentment," remarks Calvin, "as if in a picture, nay, as if actually crucified in the very midst of the hearers themselves, no eloquence, no artifice of rhetoric, can produce, unless that mighty working of the Spirit be assistant of which the apostle speaks in his two Epistles to the Corinthians (e.g. 1 Corinthians 2:4, 5, 13, 14; 2 Corinthians 3:3, 6). If any, therefore, would fain duly discharge the ministry of the gospel, let them learn not so much to apply eloquence and declamation, as to likewise so pierce into men's consciences that these may truly feet Christ crucified and the dropping upon them of his blood. Where the Church hath painters such as these, she very little needeth any more representations in wood and stone, that is, dead images, very little any paintings; and certainly among Christians the doors of the temples were not open for the reception of images and paintings until the shepherds either had grown dumb and become mere dolls, or else did say in the pulpit no more than just a few words, and these in so cold and perfunctory a manner that the power and efficacy of the gospel ministry was utterly extinct."
 
Top