Intelligitimate

So what? The Gospel writers rarely cared about context. Do you think Matthew cared that having Jesus called Emmanuel didn't exactly fit taken literally?

It's not appels and oranges, or rather, you guys haven't demonstrated it is in any clear way. It doesn't seem like an 'incidental detail' to me.

Rick Sumner

Why would I think any of that? And how does this answer the caveat raised?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

This is nonsense. I haven't suggested that there was a naked young man. I've stated quite clearly that I simply don't know what the point was.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Maybe you ought to read what you are responding to and understand it before posting? And maybe calm down a bit?

spin

Rick,

You can make any of the "prophecies" fail to fit the narrative, if you lean hard enough on the original context. And those I listed are prime examples (so I would have expected you to lean on them and find them wanting as well). Does that mean that the "prophecy" is irrelevant to the writer? Why does a writer have Jesus say, "my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?" when the original context is clearly not appropriate for a messianic figure? He does because for whatever reason the passage has become related to messianic narrative somehow. Why does this young man run away naked? I think for the same basic reason, because it has become related to messianic narrative somehow. Why did Matt put Jesus on two animals? Because the writers misinterpreted Hebrew poetry and took Hebrew parallelism as referring to two animals not one. (Why put Jesus on an animal in the first place? Because Zechariah puts his king on one.) Why did a writer use the prophecy that the messiah would be called Emmanuel, if he got called Jesus? The writer misinterpreted the passage, unaware of the original context (this is a key issue: separating a text from its context allows it to be recycled), but thought it was messianic enough to use it. Hey, why not?


spin

Rick Sumner

Maybe you ought to lay off the invective. That's the third and final time I'm saying that to you. If I want to be flamed, I'll go post pro-Microsoft comments on Slashdot.

You suggested spin was comparing "apples and oranges" by comparing *my* position with other verses. You then began to defend my position (presumably the apple, I hope so, at any rate. . .I hate oranges), by misrepresenting it. I'm not arguing historicity.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I agree. The problem is that we also run the risk of the converse--Hebrew scripture is pretty vast, and you can find a "prophecy" when there isn't one there. It's a perilous line between eisegesis and exegesis.

I beg to differ. The ones you listed are better fits with the overall narrative. The naked young man sits oddly.

It speaks to the community. Even Jesus himself faltered, thus it's okay if you do the same.

But how? And why Amos? Why is your suggestion more plausible than suggestions that it's linked to secret Mark? That it's linked to early Christian initiation rituals (naked baptism?)?

The two animals makes sense Messianically though--the king comes on an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass. Jesus is, of course, the king. How is the naked young man equated to the passage from Amos?

This compounds my caveat, rather than weakening it.

But again, it fits Messianically. The naked young man doesn't, if we don't know what it meant, then we don't know what it meant--unless you can explain a progression from Amos to Mark's naked young man, there's no reason to favor your reading.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin

It's part of the harrowing times material.

We have the two main factors as well, naked, running away -- and it's the only one in the Hebrew bible!? --, though I think it has been combined with Micah 2:8a, "you strip the robe from the peaceful", as intimated in my first post.


spin

Ted Hoffman

[remarks deleted -V]

Vorkosigan

The Amos parallel is a commonly-made one, Rick. I just read the Sacra Pagina Mark today, on PKirby's recommendation (a great book, full of insights). They too mention this in the context of the Naked Man, though no explicit link is made.

The concrete connection between Amos on one hand and Mark on the other is one the level of shame, as the SP Mark explains, to flee naked was a sign of shame. The young man was shamed by his flight, just as the mighty fleeing naked were shamed. I should add that they used this only to illustrate, not to say it was a parallel.

[mod hat on] TH, comments like this are unhelpful. Rick was being terse, not overwrought.

Vorkosigan