Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-09-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Jeffrey B. Gibson can be previewed online on Google books. Check the discussion around p 187 - 189. This is interesting:

More interesting details in the footnotes and the following section.

This has obvious implications for the dating of Mark.

It also has obvious implications for the dating of Acts which mentions an "Egyptian" who attempted to overthrow Israel's enemies

Yes, but the only implication that is "obvious" and that the evidence bears is that Acts was written after the "Egyptian's" "career" (c. 56 CE). Is there anything new or controversial in that?

Jeffrey

John Kesler · 03-09-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decypher

...do you have any thoughts on why Jesus does say that he will give a sign in the other synoptic gospels?

The Interpreter's Bible, volume 7, p 760-761, gives a nice summary:

Quote:

There shall no sign be given: This flat, categorical refusal of a sign from heaven is modified in Luke 11:29-30 by the addition of the words "...except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Ninevah, so will the Son of man be to this generation." Luke omits "from heaven" in referring to the sign, and he may possibly understand the saying to mean Jesus' earthly ministry, or that of Jesus and his disciples...Matt. 12:39-40 adds the exception, with the explanation, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." It is of cource conceivable that Luke has modified Mark, and that Matthew has elaborated Luke; but the agreements between Matthew and Luke in the total passage show that they are probably using a non-Marcan source (Q), and it is much more likely that Mark has abridged it, or its equivalent in oral tradition. Matt. 16:4 keeps the shorter form of the saying, with the simple modification, "except the sign of Jonah." It is perfectly conceivable that in the oral tradition, the saying circulated in two forms, one with, and one without, the exception clause. To mark it would go without saying that Jesus, as Son of God, could have produced signs from heaven, but forbore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decypher

And John seems to say the same:

Quote:

John 2

[18] Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
[19] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Unlike the synoptic gospels, John uses the word for "sign" to refer to Jesus' miracles. Some scholars believe that a "signs source" underlies John's miracle accounts. See The Anchor Bible Dictionary, volume 6, page 18, as well as the introductions to John's gospel provided by study Bibles and commentaries.

juergen · 03-09-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decypher

As most of us probably aren't going to track down the references, any chance you could give a quick summary?

I could, but I am sorely disinclined to do so, since it would only encourage what seems to be a rampant practice here among the majority of posters-- and that's never to go to a library and to do some real research in the published liteature, but instead to limit oneself only to what one can find on the web.

I have no interest in facilitating that practice.

Jeffrey

While I am really thankful to professionals like yourself for their time and thoughts on a lot of matters, and in principle do agree with putting in effort to gain knowledge of things, this only works in countries/cities with decent library systems. I'm not in one of them, and I'm sure a lot of others aren't either. I do order books online, but from a monetary point, it's not easy being part of a world with local currency of low value, high shipping costs, and the relatively high price of text books.

Only a few countries belong to the 1st-world. ETA: Finding information online is not a limit I have imposed on myself. Hence, my thankfulness for people with resources that expound on issues.

arnoldo · 03-09-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

It also has obvious implications for the dating of Acts which mentions an "Egyptian" who attempted to overthrow Israel's enemies

Yes, but the only implication that is "obvious" and that the evidence bears is that Acts was written after the "Egyptian's" "career" (c. 56 CE). Is there anything new or controversial in that?

Jeffrey

Only that it dates Acts to the first century. Josephus also mentions the "Egyptian".

Source: The Wars Of The Jews

Quote:

But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves.

Decypher · 03-09-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

But is it really "obscure"?

The difference between "signs" and "miracles" is much discussed in NT scholarship is it? You are really saying that? I would be surprised.

Quote:

And since, as you yourself admit, you haven't done much, if any, reading in the literature, how would you know?:Cheeky:

Jeffrey

Actually, I didn't admit that. But I will now admit that I have read no articles about this distinction between signs and miracles. But to me, it just doesn't look like the kind of thing that would get that much discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong...

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-09-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, but the only implication that is "obvious" and that the evidence bears is that Acts was written after the "Egyptian's" "career" (c. 56 CE). Is there anything new or controversial in that?

Jeffrey

Only that it dates Acts to the first century. Josephus also mentions the "Egyptian".

By your logic we would have to date Shurer's History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ to the first century as well, since he too mentions the Egyptian -- or Josephus to the 12th century BCE since he mentions Moses.

Decypher · 03-09-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

The Interpreter's Bible, volume 7, p 760-761, gives a nice summary:

Thank you.

arnoldo · 03-09-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Only that it dates Acts to the first century. Josephus also mentions the "Egyptian".

By your logic we would have to date Shurer's History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ to the first century as well, since he too mentions the Egyptian -- or Josephus to the 12th century BCE since he mentions Moses.

Ok, by your logic when do you date the Book of Acts?

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-09-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decypher

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

But is it really "obscure"?

The difference between "signs" and "miracles" is much discussed in NT scholarship is it? You are really saying that? I would be surprised.

Be surprised.

Quote:

And since, as you yourself admit, you haven't done much, if any, reading in the literature, how would you know?:Cheeky:

Jeffrey

Quote:

Actually, I didn't admit that.

You certainly implied it in your use of "us".

Quote:

But I will now admit that I have read no articles about this distinction between signs and miracles. But to me, it just doesn't look like the kind of thing that would get that much discussion.

And why, especially in the light of this admission, should we use what appears to you to be the case as the criterion for judging what's what in NT scholarship? Fallacy of personal incredulity, anyone?

Quote:

Perhaps I'm wrong...

You are. The interesting thing is why you would think otherwise.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-09-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

By your logic we would have to date Shurer's History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ to the first century as well, since he too mentions the Egyptian -- or Josephus to the 12th century BCE since he mentions Moses.

Ok, by your logic when do you date the Book of Acts?

If we are speaking of what logic allows one to deduce solely from the "evidence" of the reference in Acts to the Egyptian, after 56 CE.

Jeffrey

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.