Ted Hoffman

In several places where critical scholars (like Dennis R Macdonald - and Thomas Brodie) would argue literary borrowing, Sanders for example, argues that Jesus was acting out what he had read in the scripture. For example, entry into Jerusalem on the back of a colt/donkey and the temple ruckus (what some people call "temple cleansing").
Of course Sander's approach leaves a lot to be desired and I will deal with that sham bit of his scholarship later. I know that McDonald had criteria for detecting literary borrowing.
1. Is there any scholar who has developed some methodology for telling when someone is "acting out" scripture and when they are not?
2. Which figures in antiquity other than Jesus "acted out" what was in the scripture?
3. How would you propose someone detects literary borrowing from dudes acting out what they read?

Your responses or references will be appreciated.

Malachi151

I don't know about other scholars, but I think that the case for "acting out" is very weak.

#1) In the case of the triumphal entry, the author of Matthew misinterpreted the scripture and said that he rode into town on two animals That is a very good indication that this isn't an eyewitness account that corresponded to scripture.

#2) All of the scritpural references that we can verify against the historical record do not check out, thus giving us reason to doubt that such references are based on reality, and that instead they are just that, based on the scriptures.

#3) Many of the scriptural references refer to supernatural events, and thus in these cases it is certainly more reasonable to take these as based on the scriptures. Why should we assume that these are scripturally based but the others aren't?

#4) Occam's Razor says that writing based on the scriptures is by far the simpler explanation that Jesus' life paralleling scriptures on numerous points.

Ben C Smith

I think you should keep a photo of Sanders by your bed so you can wake up every morning and sing Hem of Your Garment to him.

Sanders... sham scholarship.... Really, Jacob!

According to Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.1 §97-99, Theudas undertook a march to the Jordan river, promising that he would divide the waters. He was, IOW, going to act out the scriptures about Joshua and the conquest.

The fellow known only as the Egyptian promised his followers he would make the walls of Jerusalem tumble at his command, standing on Olivet. More conquest reenactment, and see Zechariah 14.4 for the connection to Olivet. (Refer to Josephus, Antiquities 20.8.6 §167-172.)

Josephus also informs us in Wars 2.13.4 §258-260 that rather many such prophetic figures led their followers into the desert to show them the signs of liberty [σημεια ελευθεριας]. Into the desert, signs of liberty... sounds like Moses.

Unless, of course, these events never happened and Josephus simply borrowed all of them from the scriptures himself.

This is by no means a complete answer, but one might start with general plausibility. It is plausible for a prophetically minded Jew of century I to act out scriptures (such as by entering Jerusalem on a donkey), but it is not very plausible for the Romans to do so (such as by gambling for the clothes of a crucified man).

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Matthew got the incident from Mark. Mark, therefore, is the one to analyze, not so much Matthew.

What Matthew shows (provided your interpretation of the donkeys is correct, and it has been questioned) is that one can start with something from the tradition and modify it.

What does this mean?

This is a very good point.

We should not assume anything. We should be critically minded.

And assuming that it was always the author, never the actor, who was acting out scripture is not being critically minded.

Ben.

Malachi151

True, but Matthew's screwing it up shows the author of Matthew's hand at least.

For scripturally based claims that we can attempt to verify against the historical record, none of them are supported by the historical record.

See:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#11

But there are good reasons to think this, and no good reasons to think otherwise.

Again:

1) The use of mistranslations and misinterpretations of scriptures reveals the use of scriptures by the author. (e.g. virgin birth claim in Matthew)

2) The use of scriptures to cast "supernatural" events reveals the use of scriptures by the author. (e.g. cursing of the fig tree, walking on water)

3) The use of scriptures to cast events outside the control of the main character reveals the use of scriptures by the author. (e.g. Casting of lots for clothing)

4) The use of scriptures in cases where the historical record contradicts the narrative reveals the use of scriptures by the author. (e.g. blackout of the sun and earthquake at death, massacre of the innocents)

Given that really only a few references remain, and given this pattern, why would anyone assume, based on no other information, that other cases where passages are based on scriptures are cases where "Jesus was acting out the scriptures"?

Why should I assume that Jesus clearing the temple is "real history", when it is also clearly based on scriptures, and at that framed by supernatural references to the cursing of the fig tree? There is no reason to assume that anything based on the scriptures is "real history", and once you acknowledge that, that pretty much throws out all of the Gospels, because they are all based on scriptures.

Ted Hoffman

I will seriously consider it. Of course, he is the scholar and I am the amateur. I have work to do and I will do it. Where I am wrong, I am sure you will point it out rather than tell me I am not fit to touch the hem of his garment.
I hope I am not stirring a dormant personality cultist.
Some bits of it. The damage the HJ axiom does to an otherwise brilliant work can be remarkable.
These are good ones, thanks.
The temple ruckus has linguistic parallels that are unmistakable signs of literary borrowing. Troughton G. M notes in Echoes in the Temple? Jesus, Nehemiah and their Actions in the Temple, JBS 3/2 (April 2003) 1-21:
Of course, he is hamstrung by his own assumptions but the "intertextual echo" he so carefully reveals is literary borrowing staring back at him.
Thanks Ben

Steven Avery

"Questioned" is putting it mildly.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...=1#post4318702
A piece of evidence indicating that GJohn came from GMatthew

It is a lot easier to understand that Matthew writes of a significant prophetic relationship of the two donkeys, mother and foal, that is in fact directly given in Zechariah - than it is to claim that Matthew "misinterpreted" Zechariah.

Shalom,
Steven

Malachi151

Well, either Matthew messed up or John did, which is it?

Ben C Smith

No offense intended. The smilie was meant to reveal my general mood as I typed it.

Not a chance. I myself disagree with Sanders all the time. Left and right. With impunity. I can think of about 10 scholars off the top of my head with whom I agree more than I agree with Sanders on most issues.

But I would never say he does sham scholarship.

No problem.

Thanks for the reference to Troughton. I think I might take issue with one matter:

In this case, the furniture is identified specifically as tables (trapeza) and seats ( kaqedra), which are also potentially ‘household’ goods.

The τραπεζα, far from being merely a potential household good, was actually so (stereo)typical of the moneychangers that they were sometimes called τραπεζιται.

Theudas attempts to cross the Jordan, with several potential OT allusions in play; Jesus throws out the moneychangers, with several potential OT allusions in play. What is the conceptual difference between the Josephus incidents and the gospel incidents?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Okay, so how would you verify, say, the Theudas incident in Josephus against the historical record? What are the steps?

I would agree with you on the virgin birth narratives. But this is far, far from saying that all such OT allusions are the work of the author. In fact, any single case is irrelevant.

I agree with at least one of those cases. Again, however, how do those cases affect all cases?

Agreed. I even brought this one up myself. But still no word on how such examples affect all examples.

Sure. I can agree with these, too. But it would be absolutely uncritical of me to do the same with every allusion.

Again, one should not assume this. One should argue for it.

Let me introduce a counterpoint here. There is at least one incident mentioned in at least one of the synoptic gospels that indisputably happened, and yet is written up with multiple allusions to the OT.

Can you guess what this event is?

It is the fall of Jerusalem in Luke 21. It happened. No doubt about it. And yet Luke describes it (as a prediction for Jesus) almost strictly using OT prophecies. Apply your standard to this text, and you would have to conclude that Jerusalem never fell.

So no, you should not assume anything. Neither the yea nor the nay position. You should make an argument, case by painstaking case, one at a time.

There is no blanket big enough to throw over all the OT allusions in the NT at once.

Ben.