Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 04-02-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 11:3[/quote

If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.' "

Quote:

Ie god.

Possibly, though it reads more like it is Jesus, since he needed the colts to ride on.

Ok on the others. I didn't look closely enough at them.

How about these though?

Mark 2:28
"So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Mark 7:28
But she answered and said to Him, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs."

That's it for me tonight, take care.

ted

spin · 04-02-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.' "
Ie god.

Possibly, though it reads more like it is Jesus, since he needed the colts to ride on.

Mark sees that Jesus comes in the name of the lord (11:9), so what he does is the lord's work. This means that the animal is needed to do the lord's work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok on the others. I didn't look closely enough at them.

How about these though?

Mark 2:28
"So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

It's descriptive and titular and thus equivalent to "the lord said to my lord".

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Mark 7:28 (& 9:24)
But she answered and said to Him, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs."

This is vocative of the titular usage. Interestingly to illustrate this usage, the Peshitta translates every gospel kurie as the equivalent of "my lord".

You'll find no use of the absolute kurios in Mark ("the lord said to my lord") refers to Jesus.

spin

Doug Shaver · 04-02-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

There certainly COULD have been a special group of men not related to Jesus given such a title.

If there was no historical Jesus, there MUST have been.

mountainman · 04-02-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If there was no historical Jesus, there MUST have been.

Perennially resurrecting the HJ as an unexamined postulate.

Ted Hoffman · 04-02-2007, 11:30 PM

Ben, Let me recite Bauckam,

Quote:

The historiographical ideal – which meant that strictly speaking one could write only contemporary history, history that was still within living memory – was that the historian himself should have been a participant in many of the events and that he should have himself interviewed eyewitnesses of those events he could not himself have witnessed. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, for example, praises the historical work of Theopompus of Chios because ‘he was an eyewitness (autoptes) of many events, and conversed with many of the eminent men and generals of his day’ (Ep. ad Pomp. 6). In a literary context of this kind, John’s Gospel would seem readily to meet the contemporary requirements for reliable historiography. Its claim, whether authentic or not, is to authorship by a disciple of Jesus who notes his own presence (in the third person as was the normal historiographical convention) at key events in the story he tells, and makes it plain that he belonged to a circle of other disciples from whom he could be reliably informed of other events. Widespread failure to recognize that this Gospel’s claim to eyewitness testimony is at least a straightforwardly historiographical one (doubtless it has also a theological dimension) has resulted from the influence of the dictum that this Gospel is theology, not history, and the consequent isolation of it from its literary context in ancient historiography

Emphasis mine.
Does "he said" (third person singular) sound to you like the author is "noting his own presence" as an eyewitness and a participant in the events?

Ben C Smith · 04-03-2007, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Ben, Let me recite Bauckam,

Emphasis mine.
Does "he said" (third person singular) sound to you like the author is "noting his own presence" as an eyewitness and a participant in the events?

Yes, when the he in the narrative is the beloved disciple and chapter 21 says that the beloved disciple wrote these things, just as Josephus is noting his own presence when the he in the narrative is Josephus and the preface claims that Josephus wrote the work. Bauckham is saying that the third person is no sign that the author is not participating in the events, given historiographical convention.

But not everybody followed this convention. Porphyry, for example, refers to himself as a participant both in the third person (Porphyry did this or that) and in the first person (I, Porphyry) in his Life of Plotinus.

So what does what Bauckham wrote have to do with the first person plural in Acts?

Ben.

Chris Weimer · 04-03-2007, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Ben, Let me recite Bauckam,

Emphasis mine.
Does "he said" (third person singular) sound to you like the author is "noting his own presence" as an eyewitness and a participant in the events?

Ted, have you got your eyes checked recently? It says in the third person right there in the paragraph.

Quote:

The historiographical ideal – which meant that strictly speaking one could write only contemporary history, history that was still within living memory – was that the historian himself should have been a participant in many of the events and that he should have himself interviewed eyewitnesses of those events he could not himself have witnessed. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, for example, praises the historical work of Theopompus of Chios because ‘he was an eyewitness (autoptes) of many events, and conversed with many of the eminent men and generals of his day’ (Ep. ad Pomp. 6). In a literary context of this kind, John’s Gospel would seem readily to meet the contemporary requirements for reliable historiography. Its claim, whether authentic or not, is to authorship by a disciple of Jesus who notes his own presence (in the third person as was the normal historiographical convention) at key events in the story he tells, and makes it plain that he belonged to a circle of other disciples from whom he could be reliably informed of other events. Widespread failure to recognize that this Gospel’s claim to eyewitness testimony is at least a straightforwardly historiographical one (doubtless it has also a theological dimension) has resulted from the influence of the dictum that this Gospel is theology, not history, and the consequent isolation of it from its literary context in ancient historiography

Right there he's saying that it's in the third person.

Solo · 04-03-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

There certainly COULD have been a special group of men not related to Jesus given such a title. There is NO evidence for it, though.
ted

(GT 108) Jesus said, He who will drink from my mouth will become like Me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will become revealed to him.

This was taken down from 'living Jesus' (read 'spirit of Jesus') by Thomas Didymus. A blood twin ?

Jiri

TedM · 04-03-2007, 03:41 PM

Responses to spin and Solo,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

(GT 108) Jesus said, He who will drink from my mouth will become like Me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will become revealed to him.

This was taken down from 'living Jesus' (read 'spirit of Jesus') by Thomas Didymus. A blood twin ?

Jiri

I don't think that quote is good enough since it doesn't talk about brothers nor does it use the term "brother of the Lord", or "brother of Jesus".

Is there a Gnostic tradition that Thomas was the twin blood brother of Jesus? If so, what writing is that found in?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by TedM

If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.' "

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Mark sees that Jesus comes in the name of the lord (11:9), so what he does is the lord's work. This means that the animal is needed to do the lord's work.

It is a possible, but IMO less likely interpretation since Jesus is requesting the animal, and presumably Jesus will have it returned when he is done.
What you are doing is using the fact that the author uses "Lord" to mean "God" in another place in order to override the immediate context in order to make an interpretation. You did the same thing with your interpretations of two passages from Paul:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by TedM

1 Cor 6:17
15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!
16Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH."
17But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As "I and the father are one."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by TedM

1 Cor 7:22
20Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
21Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As Christ is the lord's agent, his "slaves" are those of the lord.

Your explanations ARE possible, but less likely given the contexts in each of the above cases. We aren't going to solve this here because it is subjective. It looks like your are so convinced that authors wouldn't call Jesus "the Lord" even though they call him "our Lord" and "Lord" and "Lord Jesus" and even though Jesus also calls himself "Lord--even of the Sabbath" in Mark, that you are willing to exclude passages such as the above as evidence against your theory even though their contexts are more supportive of my interpretation than yours. Is that a fair assessment IYO?

Quote:

This is vocative of the titular usage. Interestingly to illustrate this usage, the Peshitta translates every gospel kurie as the equivalent of "my lord".

You'll find no use of the absolute kurios in Mark ("the lord said to my lord") refers to Jesus.

I guess we see it differently then.

Given that it apparantly didn't take long for others to more clearly refer to Jesus as "the Lord" I just don't see your argument as having strong support, but maybe that's just me.

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

I'll get to the rest of your response (re James) at another time.

ted

Ben C Smith · 04-03-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

(GT 108) Jesus said, He who will drink from my mouth will become like Me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will become revealed to him.

This was taken down from 'living Jesus' (read 'spirit of Jesus') by Thomas Didymus. A blood twin ?

Thomas means twin. So does Didymus. One is Aramaic. The other is Greek. Bearing an Aramaic name and its Greek equivalent as well was not at all uncommon (think of Peter and Cephas, for example).

But there is nothing, but nothing, in the name itself to even hint that the other twin was Jesus. It just implies that Thomas was twin to somebody.

Ben.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.