Ben C Smith

Eusebius writes in History of the Church 2.10.1 that an angel of the Lord smote Agrippa. If the LXX usage is determinitive here, then the Lord is Yahweh.

Eusebius writes in History of the Church 2.13.3 of the ascension of the Lord into heaven. This is evidently Jesus.

Eusebius does not tell us how to tell the difference. He assumes that we will know.

Paul does the same thing. He assumes that his readers will know when the LXX is determinitive. After all....

Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every sabbath.

Ben.

Steven Avery

Hi Ted,

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM Are Steve, Ben and I the only ones here who think both Mark and Paul refer to Jesus as "the Lord"?

How many don't ?

How many other posters are actually claiming the necessary multiple and completely unattested and unsupported 3rd or possibly 4th century (arising out of Trinitarian and Binitarian controversies per spin) interpolations ?

Against all the textual evidence in the Greek, the Latin, the Syriac. Against all the early writers, with Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian and Clement all referencing the verses. Probably all part of some great conspiracy. Against any sensible theory of manuscript transmission.

Ted .. this type of stuff is on the same level of mountainman. Just because it is given a more sophisticated veneer doesn't make it any less cheap and transparent. Or any less a waste of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM And, the three passages you believe to be interpolations-- which I'll address below, and for me the two that you interpret differently. So, 7 passages in my book.

Even to claim one interpolation without evidence is a position of virtual textual absurdity. When multiple complementary interps that make no textual or historical or manuscript sense are claimed only to try to buttress an eclectic doctrinal view ... what is the point ?

The doctrinal theories should have been long discarded.
To instead trying to change the Bible text instead,
against all tangible evidence, is just nonsense.

The best to do with such a methodology of manipulation is
simply to expose it, and move on.

Shalom,
Steven

Solo

Both assumptions are false. The Contender need not predate the canon: the "spritual brotherhood" could have been, and likely was, carried along as a separate tradition, first within the James' church and later splitting from the Nazarenes and into the Thomasian community. This branch of Christianity (if it fits that name at all) would have been immediately at odds with the proto-orthodox, Pauline-based assemblies (later remolded into the dominant Johanine faith) which embraced Jesus as Soter-from-above. The Thomasians rejected the kind offer of remittance of sins prefering to keep the I-am-thou dialogue with "living Jesus" as spiritual food.

In the canon, Thomas was assigned a place among the twelve apostles. He has no role to play in the synoptics but in John he becomes the doubter who has trouble accepting the thesis of Jesus as a biologically alien substance walking and talking post-mortem. In John's version, Thomas submits and proclaims the scary Johanine proposition his lord and God (ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou Jn 20:28. Compare with GoT 13) perhaps to preclude further suggestions of physical intimacy with a corpse.

Naturally, there would be no mention of Thomas in the orthodox faith as "brother" because his "brotherhood" with Jesus by definition involved a competing version of Jesus.

Jiri

TedM

It seems from the timeframe that it would have been immediately at odds with the gospel based orthodox too. When are you suggesting this happened, around 100AD? And, if at odds with the protoorthodox, why would they have included Thomas as a disciple at all? You suggest he is ridiculed in a sense by the author, as a way of denouncing the Thomasian community. That seems an odd way to do it--as considering him one of the lucky disciples who comes to see the truth. Anyway, interesting thoughts. thanks,

ted

TedM

Steve, I'm not as familiar as you seem to be with spin's viewpoints nor how much evidence is against them. Thanks for your thoughts.

ted

Solo

An early version of Gospel of Thomas may predate Mark (GT12 e.g. does not make sense to have been composed after the death of James the Just, cca 62) and 125CE is the conservative estimate. The Book of Thomas the Contender, is estimated to be late 2nd century and relating to traditions of Syrian Edessa.

If you are interested in the Johanine/Thomasine rivalry and the gospel politics in general you should pick up Elaine Pagels' 'Beyond Belief' (or via: amazon.co.uk). I am sure it will broaden your outlook on the early churches.

Jiri

spin

Your expectations as to what you think an interpolation ought to be are not necessarily a good indication of the content of interpolations already known from the manuscript tradition, wouldn't you agree?

When you consider that the topic is the wisdom of god, then the clarification that such wisdom is not the wisdom of this age is a digression. Then we have a digression on the digression, which is about the lack of wisdom of the worldly rulers and the further digression loosely connected to the rulers of this age and the death of Jesus, which is immediately followed by a Hebrew bible citation related not to the digression on the digression on the digression, but merely on the digression, if you get my meaning.

This reference to the powers crucifying the lord of glory has the earmark of a marginal comment which has crept into the text.

The notion that god raised Jesus has nothing to do with what came before. It shifts away from the argument on body, which can be found in the preceding and following verse and gratuitously talks of raising Jesus and us. Another great candidate for marginal comment sucked into the text.

If you check the manuscript tradition in an apparatus such as Aland's, you'll find that "of the lord" does not follow the reference to body in 11:29. The verse talks of the individual discerning the state of their own body -- not that of Jesus or god --, so as not to come to the lord's feast with the wrong attitude alluded to in 11:18-22.

See my discussion above. The text is coherent without the confusion of the last supper imposed on the lord's feast. In Corinth, people weren't treating the communal meal with the due respect necessary: they were stuffing themselves and getting drunk. That's why they need to judge their own bodies.

By destroying the communal spirit of the meal through their gluttony they will bring judgment on themselves.

The feast of the lord is not a Jesus tradition. It only becomes that when you interpolate the last supper into the middle of it. What is important is the communal nature of the meal, that everyone should have their share in the food and drink. No-one should miss out, as was happening. The way around the problem is for the Corinthians to judge themselves and eat at home so that they don't incur worse judgment.

(As I said, this is not a specifically Jesus tradition Paul has established in Corinth.)

I don't understand your question.

The Qumran texts make it clear that there were ritual meals in Jewish society. There was always a ritual meal in Jewish society. Every time one partook in sacrifices a meal was consumed. Of course a ritual meal pre-dated Paul, though the notion of a communal meal is also quite Greek as a meals of fostering a religious community. And especially in Cilicia where Tarsus is there was a thriving community of Mithras worshippers and the ritual meal was a major factor in Mithraism. The ritual meal in a religious community was an established fact in Pauline Tarsus. It is only natural that he would employ it in his own communities. It would have been a norm even to the Corinthians. It was ideal to make it the feast of the lord.

You'll notice that mention of bread is only in the interpolation. It's understandable that you who want this to be related to the last supper would inject bread over the whole discourse, but it's not there. Nevertheless, the meal could easily have involved bread as it was such a normal vital part of life. You are trying too hard to make the whole passage fit the interpolation, though it doesn't.

The passage is about the abuse by some Corinthians of the feast of the lord, by eating too much and drinking too much and leaving others to miss out.


spin

TedM

I strongly disagree with your analysis. What you see as digressions I see as a perfect example of what he has been talking about in the prior 20+ verses.


I've described why it fits. If it fits in a marginal comment, it could just as easily fit from a string of thoughts by Paul.


I agree. But that isn't inconsistent with the respect that should also accompany a rememberance of Jesus' Last Supper.


As I said Paul mentioned traditions, and he mentioned imitating Christ, so I think the ground was set for this discussion to reasonably be as is, without interpolation, though I see how one could strip away parts to have a less dramatic tradition.

thanks for your thoughts.

Will respond further on your comments about James at a later time,

ted

Steven Avery

Welcome.

A good rule of thumb would be :

If an interpolation is claimed without any supporting textual (which is mostly Greek, Latin and Syriac) evidence, perhaps buttressed by early church writer evidence, that interpolation claim is simply doctrinally-based, an interpolation of convenience, of absolutely no scholastic substance whatsoever. A pseudo-scholastic game.

Realize that it is unlikely that the one making the claim will specifically tell you of the lack of evidence . You can usually conclude that if they do not offer any hard evidence... there is none, as in the cases on this thread. And you can simply ask for the hard evidence as well. The response may be gruff or belligerent or diversionary, folks don't like their little nonsense theories questioned and exposed, however see if any hard evidence is offered.

On your own there are a number of websites that specialize in NT variants in manuscripts. And the ecatena site can show you references by early writers. Those come in handy.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

TedM

Ok, spin, finally I'm back to the rest of your post from the other day:

There is no evidence that the name was significant to the passage in any way. Could it have been? Only in the sense that the 'idea' of relating a man to God using the term "brother of God" was possible. However, the use of the idea was different: In one case it was the naming of a child. In the other, the 'title' of a group of people. We have no evidence of such a name even in use at the time, to my knowledge. Just because the name once was acceptable, doesn't mean it was at the time of early Christianity. A does not equal B. It's a stretch, though it does make your idea 'possible'. I'd say the idea that believers were considered brothers of their Lord Jesus, supported somewhat by the gospel passage, is a much more compelling argument than the name Ahijah.


Yes, that is possible.


My argument here is this:

Hypothesis:

#1. All believers were called "brothers of the Lord" and Jesus never existed. The belief that Jesus DID exist didn't require that the way in which believers referred to each other would suddenly change and the church would come to believe that Paul's reference to "brothers of the Lord" meant that Jesus had physical brothers. I see no reason for the term to have dropped from generic usage. As such the need for clarification would have existed as soon as the gospels referred to Jesus' physical brothers. Rather, we see NO references in the early epistles other than 2 by Paul to all male believers as being "brothers of the Lord", and we see NO indication of the need to distinguish between "brothers of Jesus" and "brothers of the Lord" among other writers. The successful tradition shows no trace of this conflict. Therefore this hypothesis is unlikely.

#2 A select group of believers were called "brothers of the Lord" and Jesus never existed. The same arguments apply as in #1. The only difference is whether the surviving tradition would have known that the select group called "brothers of the Lord" existed, and if so, that they were not literal brothers of Jesus. I think it is likely they WOULD have known because the Jewish Christians would have kept such knowledge in their traditions. We know that there was a group that survived for some time that venerated James, yet we have no record that the group considered James to have been "brother of the Lord" in title only, do we?

In both cases, a tradition of "brothers of the Lord" which one would expect to be retained or addressed by the surviving tradition was not.


[Quote=Originally Posted by TedM ]
Yes, if there was a special group of brothers of the Lord that James was in and Cephas and John weren't, and that were worthy of mentioning along with apostles, that had some kind of authority or reputation, I would expect Paul to have talked about it.

Not when non-silence is the most reasonable expectation.


If he WAS in the club (ie all believers are brothers of the Lord and Paul was a believer), then there was no need for Paul to mention the group distinctly in 1 Cor, and to mention James distinctly in Galatians.

If he WASN'T in the club, I'd expect him to not avoid talking about it, if he considered himself worthy of being in it, since that is what he does with regards to being an apostle.


Please clarify. Are you now saying that you think "brothers of the Lord" was only used for those believers in the Jerusalem church?


I don't know. Tradition says yes. While we don't have an 'identifier' in 1 Corinthians, we do have one in Galatians. If you want to say that "brothers of the Lord" is the Jerusalem church of which James was a member, it still doesn't help the fact that there was certainly more than one James out of 500 believers who you have previously implied were part of the "brothers of the Lord". If the group was that large, how is anyone in Galatia supposed to know which James Paul is referring to if all he uses as a descriptor is "the brother of the Lord"? Are you suggesting that there was only ONE "James, the brother of the Lord" in all of Jerusalem? IF so, again, please tell me who you think the phrase applies to and how big a group it was in Jerusalem.


ted