I need the help of some of you grammarians in the blogosphere. I am a bit lost as to why προεγράφη in Galatians 3.1 is translated as it is in the following versions:
NASB: You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
NET: You foolish Galatians! Who has cast a spell on you? Before your eyes Jesus Christ was vividly portrayed as crucified!
NIV: You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
I know etymology is usually not a primary factor, but this word should mean something like “previously written”, correct? Elsewhere in the NT it is translated as such. In Eph. 3.3 it is translated things like “I have written” (ESV), “I wrote before” (NASB; NET), and “I have already written” (NIV). In Rom. 15.4, where it is also a Aorist, Passive, Indicative, 3rd person, singular it is translated as “written in former days” (ESV), “written in earlier times” (NASB), “written in former times” (NET), and “written in the past” (NIV). The only none Pauline appearance of the word is Jude 4 where it refers to false teachers being previously or formerly “marked out” or “designated” which seems to closer to the translation theory of Gal. 3.1 (although it is a Perfect, Passive, Participle here).
Is it possible that Gal. 3.1 is some sort of reference to Jesus being portrayed from Scripture? What does Paul mean by being publicly portrayed? I am at loss.
the archives near Emmaus 
I was hoping to come back to this post this morning and find all kinds of insightful comments on the issue. It seems that maybe everyone is perplexed by what’s going on here.
Me too! Where are all our Galatians scholars?
Interesting. Anxious to hear what you Greek scholars come up with.
My two cents:
The expressions “vividly portrayed” and “publicly portrayed” are being used in the context of the Galatians learning of Jesus, hearing the Gospel, reading of Him, etc… Is there any knowledge of prior letters to the Galatians? Seems to me “portrayed” indicates how Christ was presented to them — he was crucified.
The Galatians have lost the clear view and focus of a crucified Savior, to which Paul is certain is the way Jesus was preached to them. They’ve forgotten the Gospel as it was given the first time — which is why Paul feels “surely, someone has put a hex on you!”
Incorrect, and you seem to recognize that fact when you start with, “I know etymology is usually not a primary factor….”
What you have is a perfect example of how etymology can lead people astray.
(The temptation of etymology is important enough that I devote much of a chapter to it in And God Said — where I include examples from English like “hostile,” which doesn’t mean “like a host” even though “infantile” means “like an infant.”)
We also know that words involving writing and speaking are more likely than most to diverge from what their etymology would indicate: prescription (a legal medical document allowing someone to get medicine), prescribe (to limit), proscribe (to forbid) all demonstrate.
As with any other word, the way we figure out what prografo means is by looking at how the word is used.
In the LXX, we find it in 1 Esdras, which isn’t particularly helpful; in 1 Maccabees 10:36, where it means “enrolled”; and in Daniel 3:3, where it’s the translation of the Aramaic kayamin, “stand.”
In the NT, we see the word in Jude 1:4 (“designated” or “destined”), Romans 15:4 (“written,” probably in a pluperfect sense), Galatians 3:1, and Ephesians 3:3 (“written”).
Even counting the LXX, we have only six usages of the verb to help us understand Ephesians 3:3, and only a vague picture presents itself. Certainly, though, those six cases lead us to believe that prografo is not used only of writing.
So we don’t know exactly what the verb means in Galatians 3:1, but the leap to connect the verb to writing — based only on etymology — is a mistake.
As I see it, the important question is whether to translate, “Jesus Christ was portrayed as crucified” (ESV and NIV, for example) or “Jesus Christ was portrayed crucified” (along the lines of the KJV). Maybe this is just my own dialect, but for me, “portrayed as crucified” includes the possibility that Jesus wasn’t crucified, just displayed as though he were. I think the Greek means that the Jesus, crucified, was (publicly) displayed.
–Joel
I’ll chew on this one and try to come back to it!
@Joel,
Thanks for the helpful comment. I did sense that moving toward etymology would be a mistake, but I was left confused by the other NT uses.
Now I am interested in knowing how the word evolved into having such a meaning as is found in Gal. 3.1.
Brian, did you check BDAG and LJS? All the pieces are there if you look up προ, γράφω, and προγράφω. Etymology tends not to be terribly danger with words like this withe explicit lexical derivation & compounding — even an English word like pineapple is fairly obvious (pine, as in it has pines on it and apple as in a prototypical fruit = a fruit with pines = pineapple). Words like “butterfly” which aren’t transparent actually tend to be very much the minority for compounds. More specifically, verbs compounding with adverbs & prepositions is so common across Indo-European Languages, you’re generally quite safe in making observations about a word’s parts (again with the occasional exception).
The secondary sense of the word is “to set forth for public notice” according to BDAG. This borrows from the other meanings of both προ, (a marker of position in front of an object and an older sense of γραφω “to mark, draw.”
You can think of προγράφω as conceptually moving from “to mark something in front of something” to the meaning “to portray something in front of something.”
Mark,
This is very helpful. I think I am beginning to make more sense of the word.
In order to understand this verb here and its referent, as in many cases, one must expand beyond the Biblical literature–typicallly to limited a sample for understanding Greek words. The verb γράφειν is quite often used to mean “paint” (Lucian, Essays in Portraiture, 4, 8, 17, 18, 19, 23; Essays in Portraiture Defended 23 etc, etc). In 1st century domestic spaces of nearly every socio-economic level, living areas were decorated with wall paintings. One can confirm this abundantly by looking at the wall art in Pompley, Herculaneaum, and the terrace houses in Ephesus. Floors were also decorated in mosaics and Christian worship spaces continued the use of converted pagan artistic themes in the early worship spaces that survive from Dura Europos and the many mosaics of Christian spaces in Jordan.
It is strange that Christian scholars pretty much avoid non-textual evidence from the ancient world. But Christian churches spread in domestic spaces where art was sure to be found. Some scholars are beginning to redress this issue. David Balch is among various who are doing so. One of his articles concerns Galatians 3:1, “The Suffering of Isis/Io and Paul’s Portrait of Christ Crucified (Gal. 3:1): Frescoes in Pompeian and Roman Houses and in the Temple of Isis in Pompeii” in his _Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches_ (WUNT 228): 84-108. Another WUNT volume published several articles in 2005 called _Picturing the New Testament_. If you look at BDAG carefully you will that Paul’s use of this verb is closely associated with the artistic connection of this word. The theme of suffering was ubiquitous on the wall art and, indeed the theme of vicarious suffering was quite common. Such portraiture as Iphigenia (of Euripides fame) would have provided ample points of contact with the gospel story of Jesus who redeemed believers at the cost of his own blood. Further, Paul’s day job is like connected to graphic arts. See the BDAG article on tent-maker and you will find that the word is never used of tentmaking in Hellenistic Greek, only for scene or wall painting. There is ample evidence of Jews working in theater arts in the first century. This is largely an untapped field because we, especially protestants, imagine a non-iconic Christianity immersed in an iconic world.
In order to understand this verb here and its referent, as in many cases, one must expand beyond the Biblical literature–typicallly too limited a sample for understanding Greek words. The verb γράφειν is quite often used to mean “paint” (Lucian, Essays in Portraiture, 4, 8, 17, 18, 19, 23; Essays in Portraiture Defended 23 etc, etc). In 1st century domestic spaces of nearly every socio-economic level, living areas were decorated with wall paintings. One can confirm this abundantly by looking at the wall art in Pompley, Herculaneaum, and the terrace houses in Ephesus. Floors were also decorated in mosaics and Christian worship spaces continued the use of converted pagan artistic themes in the early worship spaces that survive from Dura Europos and the many mosaics of Christian spaces in Jordan.
It is strange that Christian scholars pretty much avoid non-textual evidence from the ancient world. But Christian churches spread in domestic spaces where art was sure to be found. Some scholars are beginning to redress this issue. David Balch is among various who are doing so. One of his articles concerns Galatians 3:1, “The Suffering of Isis/Io and Paul’s Portrait of Christ Crucified (Gal. 3:1): Frescoes in Pompeian and Roman Houses and in the Temple of Isis in Pompeii” in his _Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches_ (WUNT 228): 84-108. Another WUNT volume published several articles in 2005 called _Picturing the New Testament_. If you look at BDAG carefully you will that Paul’s use of this verb is closely associated with the artistic connection of this word. The theme of suffering was ubiquitous on the wall art and, indeed the theme of vicarious suffering was quite common. Such portraiture as Iphigenia (of Euripides fame) would have provided ample points of contact with the gospel story of Jesus who redeemed believers at the cost of his own blood. Further, Paul’s day job is like connected to graphic arts. See the BDAG article on tent-maker and you will find that the word is never used of tentmaking in Hellenistic Greek, only for scene or wall painting. There is ample evidence of Jews working in theater arts in the first century. This is largely an untapped field because we, especially protestants, imagine a non-iconic Christianity immersed in an iconic world.
Here are some other lexical takes on proegraphe that may assist you on the quest:
Louw-Nida Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains: 33.191 prographo: to provide information in a vivid manner – ‘to describe vividly, to portray.’ hois kat’ ophthalmous Iesous Christos proegraphe estauromenos ‘you before whose eyes Jesus Christ was portrayed as crucified’ Ga 3.1. It would be wrong to assume that prographo in Ga 3.1 refers to some kind of theatrical demonstration. The portrayal mentioned here was evidently a vivid verbal description.
Robertson’s Word Pictures: Gal 3:1 – Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified (hois kat’ ophthalmous Iêsous Christos proegraphê estaurômenos). Literally, “to whom before your very eyes Jesus Christ was portrayed as crucified.” Second aorist passive indicative of prographô, old verb to write beforehand, to set forth by public proclamation, to placard, to post up. This last idea is found in several papyri (Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary) as in the case of a father who posted a proclamation that he would no longer be responsible for his son’s debts. Graphô was sometimes used in the sense of painting, but no example of prographô with this meaning has been found unless this is one. With that idea it would be to portray, to picture forth, a rendering not very different from placarding.
Clearly Paul is speaking of what he did by means of preaching, but his metaphor refers not to textual posting of public notices. Rather, vivid portrayal is the idea. He is not speaking of establishing historical facts, but the life changing impact of proclamation accompanied by the power of the Spirit. The impact is what Paul is bringing to mind, because he is so puzzled by the fact they could so easily abandon the gospel as he proclaimed it. If we reimagine the context as Paul preaching in spaces public or private we are immediately face with ubiquitous graphic arts. Greco-Roman contexts were graphically rich and most folks did not read. But they could read the art.
Oh, BDAG lists an instance of προγφάφειν with the meaning “drawn/depicted” above, of a graphic art illustration in a manuscript in representation of a figure described in text. So it can have the meaning “draw or illustrate before” with προ either in a temporal or spacial meaning. See PGM 2, 60 προγράφω of a figure ‘drawn above.’ The fact that Paul says he did this to an audience that likely included at least some who were illiterate causes me to be inclined to accept BDAG’s associations.
@Yancey,
That is a very interesting take on this passage. I had not thought of art as a means of Paul’s communication. In your opinion how has this suggestion been received by others thus far? Does it seem to be received openly or with a bit of skepticism?
If you read Danker’s demure discussion in BDAG on σκηνοποιός in which he relegates the traditional definition of “tent-making” to the dustbin of lexicography, you will see just how stuck in a rut we seem to be. It maybe too much to ask textual scholars to see beyond the purview of letters on a page, but I don’t see textual scholars taking much notice at all of the vast resources available: e.g. over 10,000 pages of discussion and photos and maps about a first century city by Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, ed. _Pompei: pitture e mosaici_ and in published articles and books from classics scholars and archaeologists such as Paul Zanker, whose work _The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus_ that has for several years been a required text for a basic understanding of the big ideas in imperial period. New Testament studies have barely taken notice. Probably because Pompeii is not mentioned in the Bible, therefore it is irrelevent, I guess. It also may be due the fact that we gaze at texts, we imagine the ancient world through these texts as we think exclusively about texts. Balch originally published his article in 2003, “The Suffering of Isis/Io and Paul’s Portrait of Christ Crucified (Gal. 3:1): Frescoes in Pompeian and Roman Houses and in the Temple of Isis in Pompeii,” _The Journal of Religion_, Vol. 83, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 24-55. Last year in Ephesus I heard Dr. Ben Witherington read a paper on graffitti and art/text interface with early Christianity and he has drawn attention to the significance of the art in the terrace houses there. Annette Weissenrieder and several other scholars in the articles published in _Picturing the New Testament_ have advanced the discussion. Robin Jensen has extended the discussion to art in early Christianity in several books and authors. I notice that Robert Jewett takes notice of imperial art (the famous Ara Pacis in Rome) for understanding the imagery of Romans 8:17ff. There is much, much more.
I have to second Yancy Smith’s astonishment that Christian scholars so rarely look outside biblical literature for relevant context. The use of “grapho” both literally as “draw, sketch” and figuratively as “portray” is common in some Attic prose writers. “Publicly portrayed” is a good translation of your word, though it’s always possible that Paul intended to play on both senses of the word.
Reading this passage, I’m incidentally reminded of the Alexamenos graffito:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito
Not that this is at all what Paul would have been referring to, but just that it’s (possibly) a real-life example of Jesus being “publicly sketched” as crucified.
Thanks very much to Brian for the post and to Yancy for the comments.
I once heard it suggested that 3:1 means Paul acted out the crucifixion, dramatically, for the Galatians. (More speculatively, that Simon of Cyrene may have started this tradition and passed it to Paul in Antioch.) Frankly, I love that interpretation of “portrayed”, and it does sound extremely plausible: first century visual storytelling.
Whatever the more likely truth, I would especially love to hear more discussion of the weakness inherent in the typical, textual focus of NT scholarship. We definitely need to foster a more four-dimensional way of looking at NT content.
@Bill,
If there is something to art, sketching, or dramatization in the proclamation of Paul it appears most modern scholars are missing it altogether. I just posted about a dozen opinions on this text that I could find and no one seems to be remotely aware of the suggestion put forth by Yancy and John above. Here is my newer post: https://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/is-%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%B5%CE%B3%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%86%CE%B7-in-galatians-3-1-a-reference-to-drawingsketching-the-crucifixion/
Indeed. While etymology may not tell us what a word means, it’s certainly fascinating to see how words come to mean what they do.
Good point, it might be more like an “iconic oral tradition”?
Our approach to imagining this work is through a textual key-hole. But most people in that world related to their texts through art (because the elite were the readers). We have little concept of what once was, because many ancient ruins seem stark, bleak and white. But the cities and the houses were brightly and busily decorated. That said, public icons were imperial–of Lord Caesar and the gods that legitimated Roman power. In private homes images were mythological, celebrating the joie de vivre and the legitimacy of the authority of the Lord of the household. Into that world Paul vividly portrayed Jesus Christ as crucified and Lord of a new creation. The gospel made all things new, and sometimes even converted the pagan icons into images of Christ. For example, the god Helios in his quadriga became, in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus of Rome as well as in images of the catacombs of the Vatican, Christ the Kosmokrator. A parallel development occurs in the synagogue, where at least by the 4th-5th century we find mosaics of the god Helios in representation of Yahweh king of the world on synagogue floors. These and other figures trace a history that, in all likelihood, began with house-churches in the first century. However, in the absence of direct first century evidence we are left with texts. We know houses were decorated with mythological art. How did Christians react to that iconic world? Do the texts we have interact with any of the artistic themes we can see in the houses of Pompeii that are representative of the rather restricted repertoire of first century pagan representational art? Scholars are only begining to become aware that there is a question here.