clayu7ja,

What was so miraculous or "eye-opening" about an early Christian pointing out that a non-Jewish religion, and indeed one that rejects the elementary teachings of Judaism such as monotheism, non-idolatry, and obedience to Jewish law, would be rejected by the Jews? That wasn't a prophecy on Paul's part but his theological explanation of an obvious fact, that naturally Jews will reject Christianity. This is no more miraculous than saying that Christians will reject Hinduism. That's not a fulfilled prophecy. It's a commonsense statement of fact.

You have misunderstood the meaning of Paul's words. His message, like that of Jesus, was meant for his contemporaries, not future generations. This is clearly shown in I Thessalonians: "For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; as so we shall always be with the Lord."

Paul got the idea that "the Lord himself will descend from heaven" during his own lifetime from a Jewish work entitled I Enoch. (Enoch is told of the things that would occur at the End of time.) The direct parallel from the book which dates to before Paul's time states: "the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King will...come down to visit the earth with goodness...He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to its consummation for ever." (25.3-4)

rodahi

Since our debate seems to be devolving to "yak, yak, yaks" and cliches like "Keep your day job," I thought I'd simply present how I see things.

Most didn't recognize or understand Jesus' message until after his death when the things he had said before began to dawn on them. Therefore, my original statement stands as to why many Jews did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Paul said why, and I quoted him. That was the end of my case.

Then, I made the mistake of thinking I might point out Rodahi's biased views of Jesus. He wants to focus only on Mark because he believes it to be the earliest. I have to admit that he has the backing on this point. However, there are more than a handful of excellent scholars that hold to Matthean priority, and I happen to subscribe to their substantive theories.

All that said, I still think that Rodahi is putting a negative spin on Jesus as portrayed in the book of Mark. Perhaps this is simply the difference between a pessimistic and optimistic view of the text. I'll leave that up to anyone who reads the Mark for themselves.

My biggest problem is with his choice of translations. I believe his choice of translations results in his negative understanding of Jesus.

Obviously I cannot refute the whole "Scholar's Version" by the Jesus Seminar, but I can present examples. On a thread that I linked to in an earlier post, I gave an example of poor word choice that was geared toward contraversy and grabbing the attention of the media/public which Rodahi seems to have ignored.

I also have a substantial scholarly problem with the underlying Greek variants chosen by his translations. I have picked one example which illustrates the difference between our views: Was Jesus "feeling compassion" or "being angry"? Here, the solid textual evidence is on the side of the majority of translations which have Jesus "feeling compassion", and I can't seem to get Rodahi to address this issue with any substance much less acknowledge that the evidence is against his position.

Since Rodahi seems to believe that "being angry" is the appropriate translation, I would like for him to address the following:

"Being angry" is only found in the following extant ancient MSS:

1 Greek MS

• "D" Codex Bezae - Greek - "Western" - 5th or 6th century
  
  4 Old Latin Versions
• "it(a)" Codex Vercellensis - Latin - "Western" - 4th century
• "it(ff2)" Codex Corbiensis - Latin - "Western" - 5th or 6th century
• "it(r1)" - Latin - "Western" - 7th century
• "it(d)" - Latin - "Western" - actually the parallel Latin text written on the recto side of the diglot Codex Bezae mentioned above - 5th or 6th century

So, there are 5 ancient witnesses to the greek variant "being angry", two of which are part of the same codex: [D and it(d)], it(a), it(ff2), and it(r1). One of these, it(a), dates to the 4th century. However, this 4th century codex is a translation, not the original Greek. So, the earliest Greek support is Codex Bezae of the 5th or 6th century. All of these codeces are of the text type labled "Western" by textual scholars.

Aland has this to say about the "Western" text type and Codex Bezae in The Text of the New Testament: "...innumberable additions, transpositions, omissions, etc. Undoubtedly the achievement of the original editor was significant, but only as a reviser who altered radically the text of his early exemplar in numerous passages. These alterations can make no claim to consideration as original."

also

"...and elsewhere in the East a manuscript was written which was to become the ancestor of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D, 05, of the fifth century). In neither of these instances was the primary motivation of the revision philological. It was prompted rather by ecclesiastical or theological interests. The text of the exemplar (or exemplars, probably a different one for each group of New Testament writings) was revised not so much with a concern for establishing or restoring the original text as for determining the "best" text from a particular editorial perspective."

Now, as to those Old Latin versions, the church father "Augustine complained, for example, in his De doctrina christiana (in a passage written before 396/397) that anyone obtaining a Greek manuscript of the New Testament would translate it into Latin, no matter how little he knew of either language (ii.16). This agrees with Jerome's complaint about the variety of texts found in the Latin manuscripts of his time (ca. 347-419/420)..." (Aland, Text)

So, this handful of texts supporting "being angry" are all of the inferior "Western" text type and show signs of theological tampering. Doesn't sound like the type of support for which I'd be looking.

Now, as I stated earlier, the greek variant for "feeling compassion" is has earlier, better attestation:

14 Uncials

• "Aleph" Codex Sinaiticus - Greek - 4th century
• "A" Codex Alexandrinus - Greek - 5th century
• "B" Codex Vaticanus - Greek - 4th century
• "C" Codex Ephraemi - Greek - 5th century
• "L" Codex Regius - Greek - 8th century
• "W" Codex Freerianus - Greek - 4th or 5th century
• "Delta" Codex Sangallensis - Greek - 9th century
• "Theta" Codex Koridethi - Greek - 9th century
• "0130" - Greek - 9th century
• "0233" - Greek - 8th century
• "E" - Greek - 8th century
• "F" - Greek - 9th century
• "G" - Greek - 9th century
• "Sigma" - Greek - 6th century

Miniscules
f1 (group of MSS), f13 (group of MSS), 28, 33, 157, 180, 205, 565, 579, 597, 700, 892, 1006, 1010, 1071, 1241, 1243, 1292, 1342, 1424, 1505, 2427

Byzantine MSS
The majority of Byzantine MSS (believe me, you don't want me to list them all - well over 1000)

Letionaries
The majority of Lectionaries (don't want me to list all these either, or at least I don't want to...)

Early Versions

• Latin Versions (it) - aug, c, e, f, l, q, vulgate
• Syriac Versions - s, p, h, pal
• Coptic Versions - sahidic, boharic
• Armenian
• Ethiopic
• Georgian
• Old Slavonic

Early Church Fathers

• Basil - Greek - 379 AD
• Ambrose - Latin - 397 AD

The witnesses for "feeling compassion" are quite diverse, containing all different text types. As a matter of fact, this greek variant contains the best Uncial MSS of the best text type, the Alexandrian. Aland says: "Only a few manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), Codex Vaticanus (B), L, and a small number of other manuscripts withstand the temptation and preserve the stylistcally embarrassing text." In other words, the witnesses supporting this variant come from the least modified textual family. Isn't this what Rodahi is looking for?

You can check the New Testament Greek on this website by entering the bk/ch/vs and clicking go. They have the very Greek word that I support for Mk 1:41 - SPLAGCHNISTHEIS. As a matter of fact, if you click on the greek word, the english definition will pop up - "feeling compassion". You can also check the translation of the greek word Rodahi has a problem with in Mk 1:43 by clicking on the word - EMBRIMESAMENOS [sternly charged/warned].

The above evidence in support of "feeling compassion" is the first of three "considerations" that impressed the committee of the UBS4th GNT. Metzger puts it like this in A Textual Commentary on the New Testament: "(1) The character of the external evidence in support of ORGISTHEIS [being angry] is less impressive than the diversity and character of evidence that supports SPLAGCHNISTHEIS [feeling compassion]."

Metzger also answers Rodahi's concerns about the text being toned down as "consideration" number two: "(2) At least two other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus angry (3.5) or indignant (10.14), have not prompted over-scrupulous copyists to make corrections."

Finally, Metzger's third "consideration" is that it was suggested by Jesus' "strong warning" (NIV) in Mk 1:43, or came from a confusion between similar Aramaic words which Metzger presents.

Obviously, with this kind of overwhelming evidence, the NIV (and the majority of translations) have it correct: "Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"

In conclusion, it is plainly unreasonable for me to refute the entire "Scholar's Version" as Rodahi requires, but I hope that the examples I've given show the degree of bias in his chosen translations which use such poorly attested variants and controversial wording so as to color Rodahi's views of Jesus.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 10, 2001).]

Well, unless you are prepared to argue that Paul does not believe in an historical Jesus, you are producing a gigantic red herring here. Mark did not exist in isolation from the Christian community, nor did it fall out of the sky. Mark wrote to believers that already knew of the Gospel preached by Paul and the other apostles, and that message was one of love, and an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. You may not like that message, nor do you have to believe that Jesus was God, nor do you have to believe that early Christians believed in and practiced a regligion based on Truth and Love.

That said, however, you do have to prove your point that Jesus did not care about love, and that it was not central to His message to the world. Thus far you have failed to do so. Now, address the Gospel within its historical context. If you wish to argue that Mark predates Paul, then do so (although I do not think that you believe this). But do not take the Bible apart, examine only one portion of it (and even then, a carefully selected subportion), then think that your case has been made.

Please do not tell us that we are allowed to look at only one portion of the early Christian message. That is excessively selective of you.

The message was one of the immanent arrival of the Kingdom of God, and a command to love God with our whole heart soul and mind, and to love our neighbours as ourselves. It is not hard to discern, even if you only wanted to look in Mark. On the other hand, you could be more objective, and try to examine the entire forest as well.

In other words, He acts a lot like God. This should not be a surprise, since that is how Christians do see Him.

Yes, well, you are not a Christian, so that makes sense. On the other hand, do you detect anything in the Gospels or NT Canon that agrees with your view?

You keep thinking about Jesus as if He were a mere human being, and since you are a sceptic, that does make some sense. Unfortunately, Christians do not hold the same view, and you are talking about Christian writings and attitudes here. Now, if Jesus was God, as Mark and the rest of early Christians believed, then He is acting like a God. You object to this, thinking that no one is superior to anyone else, but that is quite beside the point here.

After all, God, if He exists, invented love, and He would be in a position to define it.

Do not be so close minded rodahi. The Bible is not to be picked apart, and we are not to be told to limit the discussion of our beliefs and creeds by relying upon only a single passage or text. Jesus, in Mark gives us the two greatest laws. Both are about love. The Pauline epistles existed at the same time as Mark, and must be included in any discussion of what Christians believed at the time, since they address this point directly.

It is dishonest to be selective in one's choice of evidence rodahi. Consider the entire record, then tell us what the Christian message really was. Right now, you appear not to know it.

Nomad

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Nomad: Why are you ignoring the Gospel message offered by Paul in this discussion and focussing on Mark alone, as if it was the only Christian text of its time?

rodahi: I am focusing on "Mark" because it is the narrative that most likely depicts the most primitive picture of Jesus. I am not interested in the hypothetical Q or the "gospel" attributed to Thomas--neither is a narrative and neither can be proven to depict a Jesus more primitive than the one painted by "Mark." Paul says very little about the historical Jesus.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Well, unless you are prepared to argue that Paul does not believe in an historical Jesus, you are producing a gigantic red herring here.

No, Nomad. There is no "gigantic red herring here." Paul spoke very little about Jesus; therefore, I think it reasonable to go the narrative that probably preserves the earliest tradition of Jesus' words and actions.

Nomad: Mark did not exist in isolation from the Christian community, nor did it fall out of the sky.

I have never argued that the writer of "Mark" existed in a vacuum, nor have I ever argued that he or his narrative "fell out of the sky." FACT: There is no narrative that definitively dates earlier than that of "Mark."

Nomad: Mark wrote to believers that already knew of the Gospel preached by Paul and the other apostles, and that message was one of love, and an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.

The is Christian propaganda! Prove that "Mark wrote to believers that already knew of the Gospel preached by Paul and the other apostles." Paul's primary "message" was the same as that of Jesus and John the Baptist, the Day of Yahweh was imminent.

Nomad: You may not like that message, nor do you have to believe that Jesus was God, nor do you have to believe that early Christians believed in and practiced a regligion based on Truth and Love.

It isn't that I like or dislike the message that the world was about to end; it is simply that the message was false.

rodahi

Nomad: That said, however, you do have to prove your point that Jesus did not care about love, and that it was not central to His message to the world.

First of all, I don't have to prove anything to you, Nomad. You are a biased Christian apologist who has made up his mind. Second, I never said that Jesus "did not care about love." However, the narrative of "Mark" conclusively demonstrates the falseness of Ish's claim that "Jesus' main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly." Again, Jesus MAIN MESSAGE was warning that the Day of Yahweh was imminent.

Nomad: Thus far you have failed to do so.

Of course, Nomad. NOTHING will convince you. You are a biased Christian apologist. Your mind was made up some time ago.

Nomad: Now, address the Gospel within its historical context. If you wish to argue that Mark predates Paul, then do so

I think the narrative attributed to "Mark" contains the earliest tradition of Jesus' words and actions. Paul has little to say about the historical Jesus. I DO NOT wish to "argue that Mark predates Paul." Again, Paul has little to say about the historical Jesus.

Nomad: (although I do not think that you believe this). But do not take the Bible apart, examine only one portion of it (and even then, a carefully selected subportion), then think that your case has been made.

No, Nomad. You choose to ignore what "Mark" has to say about Jesus because you find it embarrassing. The picture of Jesus does not fit your presuppositions.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: The first message of Christianity is one of love, and all of the NT focuses on this fact.
rodahi: It would be great if this were so, but it isn't. The fact is, the first message of Jesus and his earliest followers was the imminent coming of the "son of man" who was to judge the inhabitants of the known world as the End of times arrived.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Please do not tell us that we are allowed to look at only one portion of the early Christian message. That is excessively selective of you.

The facts seem to bother you, Nomad.

Jesus said, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."

"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that kingdom of God come with power."

"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place."

Nomad: The message was one of the immanent arrival of the Kingdom of God, and a command to love God with our whole heart soul and mind, and to love our neighbours as ourselves.

In the WHOLE of "Mark," Jesus uses about three sentences to speak of love for Yahweh and for one's neighbors. Every sentence appears between 12:29 and 12:33.

Nomad: It is not hard to discern, even if you only wanted to look in Mark. On the other hand, you could be more objective, and try to examine the entire forest as well.

I have already stated very clearly why my focus is on "Mark." Your mixed metaphor is not very effective.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: Now, if you equate "love" with always doing what others want, or always being nice to them no matter what, then that is another matter. But then that only exposes your fallacy in that you do not understand the definition of the word love.
rodahi: No, Nomad. I equate love with being peace-loving, kind, and compassionate with ALL people. "Mark's" Jesus is arrogant, angry, confrontational, and extremely judgmental--and this is with his own Jewish people. He is also confrontational at times with his own family and disciples.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: In other words, He acts a lot like God. This should not be a surprise, since that is how Christians do see Him.

So, Jesus is somehow exonerated because he takes on the attributes of the ruthless Hebrew character Yahweh? This is pathetic.

rodahi

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: It is possible to love a person, yet not always give them what they want, and to rebuke them when they deserve it.
rodahi: I don't think Jesus had any right to think of himself as superior to anyone.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Yes, well, you are not a Christian, so that makes sense.

THAT is one of the reasons I am not a Christian.

Nomad: On the other hand, do you detect anything in the Gospels or NT Canon that agrees with your view?

The PROBLEM, Nomad is the inconsistency of it all. In "Mark" Jesus is depicted as saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (12:31) Let's presume he actually said that and meant it. In "Luke" Jesus is depicted as saying, "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (14:26) Again, let's presume that Jesus actually said it and meant it.
If Jesus said both and meant both, he contradicted himself.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: One can even love a person and be angry with them. Love is not just about being a nice person.
rodahi: A person can better express his love for his fellow human beings WITHOUT expressing anger and arrogance, and without confrontation and a judgmental attitude.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: You keep thinking about Jesus as if He were a mere human being, and since you are a sceptic, that does make some sense.

If Jesus existed, he WAS a human being.

Nomad: Unfortunately, Christians do not hold the same view, and you are talking about Christian writings and attitudes here.

I agree with you that it is "unfortunate" that Christians have the attitude that Jesus was more than a human being.

Nomad: Now, if Jesus was God, as Mark and the rest of early Christians believed, then He is acting like a God.

You presume to know how a god would act? Two can play that game. If Jesus was actually a god, then why didn't he convince everyone that he was? If Jesus was a god, then why couldn't he heal everyone? If Jesus was a god, then why was he executed as a troublemaker? If Jesus was a god, couldn't he have been nicer to everyone, especially his own family and disciples? If Jesus was a god, then why did he go away to come back some day? I have a thousand questions for you, Nomad, if you want to play that game.

Nomad: You object to this, thinking that no one is superior to anyone else, but that is quite beside the point here.

I think MOST Jews detested Jesus BECAUSE of his superior attitude. THAT is the point, Nomad.

rodahi

Nomad: After all, God, if He exists, invented love, and He would be in a position to define it.

Since there is no evidence demonstrating the existence of Yahweh (or Zeus, or any other god), your statement is nonsense.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ish claimed, "Jesus main message was one of love for one's neighbor which he demonstrated constantly." I say Ish is wrong. If you agree with Ish's claim, then present textual evidence from "Mark" that supports the claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Do not be so close minded rodahi.

Translation: "I can't present textual evidence from 'Mark' that supports Ish's claim. It isn't there."

Nomad: The Bible is not to be picked apart, and we are not to be told to limit the discussion of our beliefs and creeds by relying upon only a single passage or text.

In my view, the JC Bible is ancient literature, nothing more and nothing less. The criteria used to analyze and evaluate the JC Bible should be precisely the same as that used to analyze and evaluate ALL other ancient literature.

Nomad: Jesus, in Mark gives us the two greatest laws. Both are about love.

"Mark" depicts a sometimes angry, arrogant, confrontational Jesus. Any impartial reader can clearly see this.

Nomad: The Pauline epistles existed at the same time as Mark, and must be included in any discussion of what Christians believed at the time, since they address this point directly.

I am not concerned with what "Christians believed at the time," per se. I AM concerned with the Jesus depicted in "Mark," most probably the oldest narrative tradition of Jesus' words and actions.

Nomad: It is dishonest to be selective in one's choice of evidence rodahi.

This is laughable, Nomad, considering what you "select" and what you "ignore."

Nomad: Consider the entire record, then tell us what the Christian message really was. Right now, you appear not to know it.

I have read the entire NT, Nomad. I think "Mark" most probably contains the earliest traditional pieces of Jesus' words and actions, arranged the way "Mark" wanted them. In other words, this narrative may, to some extent, give readers a glimpse of what Jesus was actually like. The other synoptics alter "Mark" and add material that may or may not be earlier than "Mark." "John" is a theological piece that contains very little of the primitive Jesus tradition. Paul is not concerned with the historical Jesus, nor is any other NT writer.

rodahi