Did Jesus Even Exist? Dr. Richard Carrier

[Joshpantera]

On 4/5/2018 at 10:23 AM, Geezer said:

Dr. Robert M. Price book the Colossal Apostle answers that question, as does Dr. Hermann Deterings book The Fabricated Paul. Another thought, if Paul & his writings are fictional stories with fictional characters, as some scholars believe, then the alledged Jerusalem meeting with Peter & James the Lords brother never happened. 

 

@TrueScotsman

Have you read either of these books about the question of Paul's historicity? That would be the best to start looking for answers to this. Price and Detering felt compelled to write books about it. But as to Carrier, he's interested in Jesus and Paul is quite secondary. He and Doherty take Paul at face value. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

22 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

Carrier doesn't take Paul at face value, go out and read what he has written on the subject.  I was mostly interested in the Pauline Epistles when I was a Christian, particularly Romans and 1 Corinthians along with Galatians, so I have read many different points of view on the subject but not those two particular authors.  I will check them out, but I certainly wouldnt put Paul's and Jesus' historicity in the same boat as Blood does.  

 

I don't think many people do. I'm not sure that Blood does either. It's just one of those possibilities that has been raised. I haven't read too deep into the case presented by Price and Detering, but I'll likely add those books to my collection just for the sake of seeing the case they lay out. 

[Blood]

6 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

You keep jumping to Christians teaching theology as history, that no doubt is done, but I am talking about positions held by secular scholars, even Richard Carrier presented in the OP.  Which concerns the historicity of 6 Pauline Epistles, I laid out several points, none of them embracing the reality of "theology," but none of them have been addressed by you.

 

I care about history, so why won't you engage my points?  

 

I thought I addressed all eight of your points on page one of this thread. Did I miss something? 

 

 

[Blood]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I don't think many people do. I'm not sure that Blood does either. It's just one of those possibilities that has been raised. I haven't read too deep into the case presented by Price and Detering, but I'll likely add those books to my collection just for the sake of seeing the case they lay out. 

 

All we're doing is discussing different models to try to understand how to approach the books and letters of the Bible. We are all very well aware of the different "historicity" models -- i.e., that the NT writers, for example, were quasi-historians recording oral history handed down from the followers of Jesus, with little to no critical filters between reality and legend. This method says that if we curb the excesses of legend and myth that have accrued, then we can have confidence that a real man doing real events can be found at the bottom of it all. 

 

Is this a valid approach? Yes, because this same process has demonstrably happened throughout history -- real people were mythologized. It still happens in our own time with figures like Elvis and Robert Johnson. 

 

Is this the only approach? No. Because the opposite phenomenon ALSO happened frequently throughout history -- legendary figures became "real" in the writings of later authors. Romulus, Hercules, Buddha, Confucius, Prince Hamlet, Prester John, William Tell -- the list is extremely long. 

 

In the past, I've quoted Bertrand Russell mentioning Buddha, Confucius, and Zoroaster, and then qualifying all three with a pithy "if they existed." Western writers have had no difficulty whatsoever questioning the historicity of revered religious figures from Eastern cultures. They are quick to assign others to the "legends-who-became-real" category. But never Jesus. Western culture can't be wrong about Jesus. Eastern cultures can worship myths, but not us -- we're too logical. Pure nonsense. Pure, unscientific cultural bias.

 

What I'm doing is proposing that we try a model that uses the second approach for a change. The first model is valid, but it's been done to death. Alternative approaches -- free from any theological taint whatsoever -- may prove to be wrong or dead ends, but they may also prove to be more historically sound than the first approach. Few people in China are very concerned whether Confucius was a myth or real. Good arguments are made either way. Why can't the same be done for Jesus? Or Paul?

 

 

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, Blood said:

 

All we're doing is discussing different models to try to understand how to approach the books and letters of the Bible. We are all very well aware of the different "historicity" models -- i.e., that the NT writers, for example, were quasi-historians recording oral history handed down from the followers of Jesus, with little to no critical filters between reality and legend. This method says that if we curb the excesses of legend and myth that have accrued, then we can have confidence that a real man doing real events can be found at the bottom of it all. 

 

Is this a valid approach? Yes, because this same process has demonstrably happened throughout history -- real people were mythologized. It still happens in our own time with figures like Elvis and Robert Johnson. 

 

Is this the only approach? No. Because the opposite phenomenon ALSO happened frequently throughout history -- legendary figures became "real" in the writings of later authors. Romulus, Hercules, Buddha, Confucius, Prince Hamlet, Prester John, William Tell -- the list is extremely long. 

 

In the past, I've quoted Bertrand Russell mentioning Buddha, Confucius, and Zoroaster, and then qualifying all three with a pithy "if they existed." Western writers have had no difficulty whatsoever questioning the historicity of revered religious figures from Eastern cultures. They are quick to assign others to the "legends-who-became-real" category. But never Jesus. Western culture can't be wrong about Jesus. Eastern cultures can worship myths, but not us -- we're too logical. Pure nonsense. Pure, unscientific cultural bias.

 

What I'm doing is proposing that we try a model that uses the second approach for a change. The first model is valid, but it's been done to death. Alternative approaches -- free from any theological taint whatsoever -- may prove to be wrong or dead ends, but they may also prove to be more historically sound than the first approach. Few people in China are very concerned whether Confucius was a myth or real. Good arguments are made either way. Why can't the same be done for Jesus? Or Paul?

 

 

 

Perhaps in time, due to all this debating and revealing the weak roots at the foundation of these western religious views, the result may become just like the eastern versions. In time, perhaps, no one will even care one way or the other whether or not they ever existed historically. And that would be a positive result as far as I'm concerned. 

[Blood]

Not much to disagree with here.

 

I'm interested in exploring alternative models of what could have happened. If (as you say) the "Deutero-Pauline" letters reflect a later church theology and context -- say 150 CE -- "early" could theoretically be 110, 120, or 130 CE. You could just as easily make the case that the supposedly authentic Pauline epistles were actually written in the 110s or 130s to combat an ideological war emerging between different groups at that time. The early polemicists didn't dispute Marcion "discovered" the Epistle to the Galatians. Perhaps "discover" means he wrote it, just like Joseph Smith "discovered" (wrote) the Book of Mormon. 

 

And if that's the case -- the language and ideas of Galatians are similar to the other six supposedly authentic Pauline epistles. Is it possible that Marcion wrote all of the "authentic" Pauline epistles? Perhaps. 

[Blood]

5 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Perhaps in time, due to all this debating and revealing the weak roots at the foundation of these western religious views, the result may become just like the eastern versions. In time, perhaps, no one will even care one way or the other whether or not they ever existed historically. And that would be a positive result as far as I'm concerned. 

 

The growth of the Internet has already shifted the argument. This of course does not constitute an endorsement of the Internet as a serious research tool. But just the fact that people can have dialogues like the one here is having a profound effect. Nothing will ever be the same again. 

 

It's very possible that "Christ mythicism" will actually turn out to be a mainstream version of Christianity. Perhaps in another 500-1000 years, Westerners will grow out of their childish needs for myths to be real, or reality to be myth-like, and simply accept that ideas are more important than dogmas or creeds...

[Joshpantera]

10 hours ago, Blood said:

Not much to disagree with here.

 

I'm interested in exploring alternative models of what could have happened. If (as you say) the "Deutero-Pauline" letters reflect a later church theology and context -- say 150 CE -- "early" could theoretically be 110, 120, or 130 CE. You could just as easily make the case that the supposedly authentic Pauline epistles were actually written in the 110s or 130s to combat an ideological war emerging between different groups at that time. The early polemicists didn't dispute Marcion "discovered" the Epistle to the Galatians. Perhaps "discover" means he wrote it, just like Joseph Smith "discovered" (wrote) the Book of Mormon. 

 

And if that's the case -- the language and ideas of Galatians are similar to the other six supposedly authentic Pauline epistles. Is it possible that Marcion wrote all of the "authentic" Pauline epistles? Perhaps. 

 

King Josiah, discovering the lost books of Moses is another example. 

[Blood]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

King Josiah, discovering the lost books of Moses is another example. 

 

Right. These are just literary constructs. Like the "letters" and "diaries" used in Bram Stoker's Dracula. They certainly seem to be real. The author assures us they are real. They mention real people, places, events. But the letters don't actually exist. The people who "wrote" them don't actually exist. 

[Joshpantera]

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/paul/marcions-apostolicon

 

I'm reading this article now. 

 

The majority opinion of Marcion is that he created his Evangelion (his ‘Gospel of the Lord’) by editing Luke, and his Apostolikon by editing ten of the Pauline epistles, in order to ‘promote’ and support his theology. It is generally assumed that he rejected (i.e. by a positive act on his behalf) all other books of the Bible, although there is no evidence that, for example, he even knew of Acts, or the remaining Pauline or other epistles. Despite the strong condemnation of Marcion by Tertullian, Epiphanius, Origen, and many others who regarded him as a heretic who rejected the Old Testament and manipulated the New Testament to his own ends, what evidence there is (as opposed to mere opinion) can just as readily support the view that Marcion promoted an earlier form of Christianity, at a time when the power of the ‘orthodox’ Church had grown to the point where it was able to wage war against believers who did not follow the ‘party line’ by labeling them as heretics of one kind or another.

Although it is generally thought that Marcion created this edited collection of books to suit his theology, and that he rejected the other gospels and epistles, it is possible that he simply did not know at least some of them. As it appears that Cerdon also based his system around these same books, it is conceivable that Marcion based his theology on copies of them as used by Cerdon. Whether it was Cerdon or Marcion who edited them, or whether perhaps they were early or unfinished copies of Luke and some of the Pauline epistles, is unknown, although the prevailing view is that Marcion made the changes. Unfortunately, none of Marcion’s works have (as far as we know) survived to the present day, and therefore we have to rely on his detractors to determine what he wrote or believed. Nevertheless, Marcion played an important role in creating the New Testament as we know it today: 

… the chief importance of Marcion in the second century lies in the reaction which he provoked among the leaders of the Apostolic Churches. Just as Marcion’s canon stimulated the more precise defining of the NT canon by the Catholic Church, not to supersede but to supplement the canon of the OT, so, more generally, Marcion’s teaching led the Catholic Church to define its faith more carefully, in terms calculated to exclude a Marcionite interpretation. (F.F. Bruce)

[Joshpantera]

Conclusions

The evidence of Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, et al testifies to the existence of a version (or more accurately, two versions) of Paul’s epistles attributed to Marcion and/or the Marcionites, but, considered dispassionately, provides no information as to how the Apostolicon came to be created.

Unless we are prepared to believe that Epiphanius either lied, or saw a vastly different version of the Paulines (for which there is no evidence) to that seen by Tertullian, then Epiphanius saw a much later version of the Apostolicon than that seen by Tertullian. Whatever is the reality, as Epiphanius’ evidence is nearly two centuries later than that of Tertullian, it cannot be trusted so far as attempting to recover the original text of the Apostolicon is concerned, although it does appear to provide evidence for the existence of a later version of the Apostolicon in which First and Second Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon were very different to those seen by Tertullian.

What we are then left with is that Tertullian testifies that the Apostolicon contains versions of First and Second Corinthians, First and Second Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon and Philippians that were either almost identical to or contained only small differences (mainly omissions) from the Paulines, but versions of Galatians and Romans that were significantly shorter. In several instances the portions of the text ‘missing’ from the Apostolicon have been suspected of being interpolations, suggesting that rather than Marcion having removed the 'missing' text, his Apostolicon instead most likely contained earlier versions of what we know as the Pauline epistles. Kirby concludes: 

 

In agreement with the investigations of other research (regarding the particular textual variants noted as present in Marcion’s text and regarding the various passages retained by Marcion), this study particularly in the shorter readings of Marcion’s text finds some confirmation of the hypothesis that Marcion’s text of Paul can be regarded as a valuable witness to the early stage of transmission with little to no detectable redaction taking place at Marcion’s hands.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

DR. Carrier makes some very good points. It isn't like they hadn't done it before. If you really look at it, the mosaic religion was developing at around the same time Akhenaten was promoting Monotheism in Egypt. All the canaanites ever did it seems is make their own versions of the religions that surrounded them. Even their polytheistic origins in the El pantheon myths were just their version of the same flat earth creation with their own God's/Goddesses. 

 

     So it makes since that they would develop their own "osiris" version in Jesus, mixing all the traits of other Savior God's. 

 

It really sucks to know that pretty much EVERYTHING that i once believed has a good possibility of all being made up. It would have been nice if at least Jesus was an actual man that started a religion. 

 

DB

[Blood]

18 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/paul/marcions-apostolicon

 

I'm reading this article now. 

 

 

 

 

Marcion's gotten a lot of attention in recent years. It's now generally thought that he created the first attempt at a "New Testament" with his "Evangelion" (gospel) and "Apostolikon" (letters of Paul). It's more likely that "The Gospel of Luke" is an expansion of the "Evangelion" of Marcion, rather than what the liars known as "church fathers" put forward, that Marcion redacted Luke. 

 

The whole scene in the second century may have been similar to the scene in Europe during the sixteenth century. The only difference would have been the reverse -- the Marcionites, Ebionites, Valentinians, Sethian Gnostics et al. were the original churches, and the "reformers" or "protestants" were the new Roman churches who felt that they needed to wage ideological war with the established churches in order to win the battle. And like the sixteenth century battles, there may have been political, racial, or economic overtones to these struggles that went unmentioned in the writing. 

 

The Catholics attracted lawyers skilled at legal argumentation and personal attack. The older churches were more into mysticism and Greek philosophy. The Catholics learned from Cicero. The older churches learned from Philo and Plato. Totally different personality types. The Catholics attracted obnoxious boors like Tertullian and Irenaeus. The older churches kicked out people like Tertullian -- or never admitted them in the first place. 

 

The worst part is that the johnny-come-lately phonies (the Catholics) won the battle and got to write the history -- or rather, pseudo-history. They won by lying, forging, cheating, slander, revisionism, misrepresentation, innuendo -- whatever lowball tactics they could come up with. 

[Blood]

The name "Marcion" is so intriguing. In modern English, it would mean, "Little Mark," or "Mark, Junior" -- somebody related to a "Markos" either by association or birth. I don't know how common a Greek name "Mark" was, but one cannot help but think that the "Mark" being referenced is the author of the gospel. That's what makes the "Evangelion" and its relationship to the Gospel of Luke so perplexing. We should expect that "Little Mark," compiling the first New Testament, would use the oldest gospel, written by his namesake, not Luke. But the possibilities are endless. Perhaps Marcion re-wrote the Gospel of Mark and this served as the basis for the "Evangelion." Later redactions by the Catholic frauds resulted in the gospel being retitled Luke. 

[Blood]

It's pretty mind-blowing to consider that Marcion might have written the "authentic" Pauline epistles himself. Assuming that they were written to address conflicts happening in the 110s or 120s, that would mean that the heretics and "Judaizers" bringing in "false Christs" were in fact the emerging Catholics. And you can read them that way, since Marcion rejected the canon of the Old Testament but the Catholics accepted it. It would be the supreme irony of history if the people that "Paul"/Marcion was warning readers about were the Catholics. 

 

A lot of bad stuff went down between 100 CE and 150 CE. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Blood said:

It's pretty mind-blowing to consider that Marcion might have written the "authentic" Pauline epistles himself. Assuming that they were written to address conflicts happening in the 110s or 120s, that would mean that the heretics and "Judaizers" bringing in "false Christs" were in fact the emerging Catholics. And you can read them that way, since Marcion rejected the canon of the Old Testament but the Catholics accepted it. It would be the supreme irony of history if the people that "Paul"/Marcion was warning readers about were the Catholics. 

 

A lot of bad stuff went down between 100 CE and 150 CE. 

I dont believe that this is the case. I've read Bart Ehrmanns "Forgeries and counter forgeries" and he goes over the pauline epistles extensively comparing them to the accepted original pauline epistles.  Some of the the ones that were forged that we know were probably forged by Marcion. Also The church was already established based on the original pauline writings around the time he was born. I believe that there was definitely an original "paul" whether that mans name was actually "paul" who knows. But 7 books are written by one author and in the early church many forgeries were made to change the ideology of the church. Marcion was one among many. 

 

DB

 

EDIT: I accidentally said Pauline Gospels. I corrected that with "Epistles". I had just woke up. My bad. 

[Blood]

On 4/8/2018 at 4:18 PM, TrueScotsman said:

Why would he quote the Torah so much, and declare that there was only one god (not Jesus), whereas Marcion thought there were two?  Why try to establish his authority from the Torah and connect the purpose of the gospel to the Torah as he did in Galatians if he wanted to reject the entirety of the text?  The evidence on Paul seems to fit better with Ehrman's position, which is that Paul did not think of Jesus as a god, but that thinking came later rather than thinking of Paul as purely an invention of Marcion.  Carrier even argues that Paul is best interpreted as supporting a mystical interpretation of Jesus himself, which would scarce cause these texts to go against the Gnostic position.  I think we are left without any proof on the matter, but have to do the dirty work of internally examining the 6 Pauline Epistles to see which way lines up better.  I'm open to it being a Marcion creation, but I think that's a tall order, though a valid theory to explore.  

 

Paul only brings up "the law" in order to trash it, which is what you would expect from a non-jew like Marcion but not a supposed Pharisee. It is by no means clear that the "Theos Pater" referred to in the Pauline epistles is Yahweh. He says that "angels" gave the law to Moses in one passage rather than Yahweh. 

 

Paul calls Jesus "Kurios" and the "son of Theos" so he was a god-like being in Paul's thinking. Ehrman is wrong. 

[Blood]

These discussions remind one of the similar discussions people had in the 1600s and 1700s about Christian Rosenkreuz. He was the leader of a secret Christian sect of the late middle ages who traveled in the Levant and Asia learning from the sages. Then he brought back this wisdom to the German states and started a secret order, the Rosicrucians. In the early 1600s, three of their secret books were recovered and published. Their beliefs and cult practices are outlined. Different members of the order were alluded to by their initials. These books caused a great stir in Europe. 

 

In reality, there was no "Christian Rosenkreuz." There was no secret order. There were no members. There were no secret books. The books were written by Lutheran scholars in Tubingen shortly before publication. Later, real people actually did start a real "Order of the Rosicrucians." 

 

Christianity most likely had a similar literary origin. In reality, there was no Jesus, Paul, 12 disciples, or Jerusalem church. These were all simply literary characters and constructs imagined by existing religious-philosophical groups consisting of non-Jewish people who had obtained copies of the Septuagint, and began organizing philosophical discussion groups who met in private. For awhile, the clubs were content just to elaborate on the Septuagint, but after some time passed, some members began to desire to write their own scriptures. They imagined what "Jesus and the apostles" would have done in far-away Palestine, had they existed, just like the Lutheran scholars imagined what Christian Rosenkreuz and his followers had done. They wrote letters as if the apostles had written them, just like people did for Plato, Socrates, Diogenes, etc., in their own time, and later did for the Rosicrucians. The "Pauline epistles" alluded to events, ideas, and personalities happening in their own philosophy clubs, just as Rosenkruez's writings actually refer to things happening in the Lutheran authors' times, not the lifetime of Rosenkruez. But only the few people comprising the in-group were aware of this. Those outside the group believed them to be actual letters. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Rosenkreuz

[Geezer]

I am involved in a discussion regarding Paul & Marcion on another site. Christians on that site routinely pull up some apologist to defend their argument that Paul was a real person and personally wrote the Epistles. They, of course, denounce Ehrman and scholars like him as being biased and therefore their findings are not trustworthy because they are anti-Christian. 

 

I"m posting this persons response because I though it was excellent. 

 

........Here is my opinion and I am degreed in history with graduate study in the subject. I would beware of what any apologist defending Christianity has to say. Check your sources everytime. They can and often do lie or will take original sources out of context. They will also keep repeating old arguments proven wrong long ago. 

I also advise being wary of non-believing critics of the Bible too and for a different reason. I do not catch them lying so much as ommitting a lot of what they know from the general public. They have a lot more they could share that would not help Christianity or Judaism at all if the public knew what they knew but I think do not share for their own econonomic security (jobs at these liberal seminaries or university religion positions) Even though they are non-believers they make their living critiquing and studying a religion half the worlds population nominally belongs too. If they destroy Christianity they destroy their own livelyhoods. Ironically, the nonbelieving critical theologians like Erhman are actually just as parasitical of religion as the preachers are in some ways. The unbelieveing theologian scholars cater to the atheist community because the evidence leads them honestly towards that position, but they will only share so much because if there were no believers around there would be no one who cared about their arguments (ironically) why the Bible is unreliable or why Noah's ark story is wrong, ect. I bet believ ers buy a whole lot more of the critics books than the unbelievers do truth be told. And how many people do you see writing books about why the great god Baal or Asshur or Shamash probaby doesn't exist and why their sacred writings have been added too or taken from over the years? No one argues's Horus's scriptures are corrupted and that possibly the evil lesser god Set tempted some wicked priests into putting some bad advice into the wisdom literature of the Egyptians claiming it was from good ol' Horus? No. Because no one believes in those gods anymore and there is no market to write books about that subject matter anymore. People could literally care a shit less than nothing what Horus, Baal, Chemosh, Ur-Nina, Shamash, Thor, Enki, Enlil, Molech, ect have to say about anything. Theology degrees are practically of no value outside teaching, preaching or chaplaincy. No religion, no demand for nice jobs at universities teaching about these religions whether believing in them or not. I bet if you took a survey of 100 universities I bet you may only find one or two professors studying the theology of the ancient god Asshur for example and he's the one no one cares to take classes from if it can be avoided.

 

The person that submitted this post isn't a Christian, he's a Muslim.  

[Blood]

The whole situation is starting to get really strange in the USA. The really serious theologians have become de facto atheists and agnostics (Ehrman, William Propp, Anthony Pinn, et al.) who teach a de-clawed, secularized, rationalized, and frankly boring history of religion or Christianity. Few are becoming ministers or doing anything that supports any ministry. They seem embarrassed and a little ashamed of the whole thing. 

 

The people actually going into real Christianity now are the marketing gurus like Osteen, or Koresh-type apocalyptic loons with either no degree, or a degree from some supermarket university. These types are doing great. They could care less about the stuff that so bothered Ehrman's conscience. 

 

I had a chat with one of these apocalyptic street-corner preacher types a few years ago. He dismissed my questions about the authenticity of the Pauline epistles as the delusion of "a few liberals." To him, all 14 of the Pauline epistles were written by Paul. Anyone who claims otherwise is liberal and deluded by Satan. 

 

I cannot imagine religion/theology departments lasting in the country's leading secular universities too much longer. They simply cannot keep up the facade. Among younger people, the interest just isn't there. Among faculty, the interest isn't there. Nobody cares anymore except conmen and lunatics. 

[SeniorCitizen007]

If there once was a man with the name IESOUS CHRISTOS  then it is rather strange that his name anagrams to OSIRIS SET CHOUS ('Chous', "a measure of capacity equal to 12 cups") ... who was taken to Egypt as a baby after the Jewish king tried to kill him. 

[sdelsolray]

On 4/18/2018 at 8:58 PM, SeniorCitizen007 said:

If there once was a man with the name IESOUS CHRISTOS  then it is rather strange that his name anagrams to OSIRIS SET CHOUS ('Chous', "a measure of capacity equal to 12 cups") ... who was taken to Egypt as a baby after the Jewish king tried to kill him. 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

It's late at night and I don't have time to present my thoughts coherently but I'm going to throw this in here:

 

http://jesusneverexisted.com/ 

 

Kenneth Humphreys wrote that site and has done many youtube videos expounding on his views. From memory he holds that the events Pauline epistles, and the entire NT is largely or all fiction. 

 

 

 

[mymistake]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

http://jesusneverexisted.com/ 

 

Kenneth Humphreys wrote that site and has done many youtube videos expounding on his views. From memory he holds that the events Pauline epistles, and the entire NT is largely or all fiction. 

 

 

I find his arguments to be very persuasive.

[Blood]

Humphreys makes a big deal of Galatians 3:1, which he translates as "before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified." Which he says sounds like a theater pageant. 

 

This is one of those cases where the Greek original is vital. The word is the verb "proegraphe" (προεγράφη).

 

3:1b οἷς κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος;

3:1b before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

 

Proegraphe is used by Plutarch to mean "proscribe," as in legal charges proscribed to a defendant. Liddell and Scott define it as "appoint or summon by public notice." 

 

It does not mean "portrayed." But it's hard to square Gal 3:1 with "before your very eyes Jesus Christ was appointed or summoned by public notice as crucified."

 

The same word is used in Romans 15:4:

 

For everything that was was written in the past (προεγράφη) to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Graphe (writings, scriptures) and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. 

 

Here, proegraphe is usually translated to mean "written in the past." I think this is the meaning that the author was getting at in Galatians. It meant something like, "as you read yourself, Jesus Christ was referenced in past writings (scriptures) as crucified."