Steven Carr

Mark explains for his Christian readers things like the geography and currency of Plaestine and explains Jewish customs.

John also has to explain Jewish customs.

Yet Christians were perfectly familiar with Semitic idioms like 'flesh and blood' to such an extant that Paul could use them and expect them not to be taken literally.

Paul also apparently uses imagery from the Book of Daniel, and other apocalyptic works.

Puzzling that there could be two different sets of audiences , bith getting the same Gospels messages, yet one group is highly knowledgeable about Judaism, while the other group had to be told basic things like the Jews not mixing with Samaritans.

Who exactly were the Gospels written for?

Toto

Rodney Stark speculates (with some support) that Christianity in the second and third centuries spread among the Jewish Diaspora, especially Jews with some Jewish background who were not closely tied in to their ancestral religion, whose primary language was Koine Greek, but who still retained some attachment to a Jewish identity.

This would fit in with a second century date for the gospels.

MortalWombat

Incorrectly in many cases, but that's another story.

Bernard Muller

Steven: Mark explains for his Christian readers things like the geography and currency of Plaestine and explains Jewish customs.

John also has to explain Jewish customs.

Yet Christians were perfectly familiar with Semitic idioms like 'flesh and blood' to such an extant that Paul could use them and expect them not to be taken literally.

Bernard: "flesh and blood" is used twice in Paul's epistles and clearly mean, according to their context, human beings (1Cor15:50,Gal1:16). Don't you think that this expression, in Greek, would not be clearly understood by Greek-speaking? Even if it is a Semitism?

Steven: Paul also apparently uses imagery from the Book of Daniel, and other apocalyptic works.

Bernard: Humm, I do not say you are wrong here, but I wonder from where you got that (more so about Daniel).

Steven: Puzzling that there could be two different sets of audiences , bith getting the same Gospels messages, yet one group is highly knowledgeable about Judaism, while the other group had to be told basic things like the Jews not mixing with Samaritans.

Bernard: I think the author of 'Hebrews', Apollos, made the OT popular & trustworthy among Gentile Christians. Other preachers/"teachers" then (all Jews according to Paul) were likely to impress on the Gentiles with their knowledge of LXX bible. Paul followed on that mostly in his last letters (Romans, Galatians) and to the Corinthians (all of that explained on my page HJ-3b, "the beginning of Christianity". Other letters have very little or nothing from the OT, 1Thessalonians and Philippians. So time and audience matter on this item.

Justifying many things through the OT (many times by cut & paste, paraphrasing, adding on and taking out of context) became very common, even much later, in the 2nd & 3rd century. That, rather than relating to a (very little) HJ, or later, to a whole crop of very flawed & conflicting gospels, was highly preferable. The Christian writers hijacked the OT to give an air of truthfulness to their claims.
I also think that many biblical stories in the epistles are fairly well explained and do not require a prior knowledge of the OT passages in question. Actually, a good knowledge of the OT among the flock would raise a lot of issues about the accuracy & relevance of the quotes.

Steven: Who exactly were the Gospels written for?

GMark: Probably mostly Gentiles (Corinthians in my views: certain 80%) but also the Jews in the community. Those later were deemed to switch after the events of 70.

GLuke: Definitively Gentiles, probably Roman citizens with a lot of prominent women (Philippi, Macedonia: certain 100%).

GMatthew: Mainly Jews and Jewish Christians (& God fearer Christians). His message to strictly Gentile Christians in his community: you better adopt Jewish customs (as a minimum) or else!!! Location: Likely Antioch, Syria. If not, another city in Syria.
Note: GMatthew made the most "use" of the OT and is the most midrashic gospel.

GJohn: To Gentile (Son of God believers) Christians and the others. His message to other Christians: you better acknowledge and worship the pre-existent Son or else !!! Location, probably Ephesus. If not another city in the province of Asia.

Then of course, Jesus, as a Jew of Palestine, allegedly enlightened by the Spirit, would be expected to relate to the OT. And the presbyters in the respective congregation (more so the anonymous author) were at hand to explain the OT references to their Gentile converts!

Best regards, Bernard

Steven Carr

'Flesh and blood' is used in 1 Cor 15 to mean 'human beings'? As in 'Human beings will not inherit the kingdom of God'

I think from NT Wright's exegesis of Thessalonians.

I wouldn't say so myself. Working from memory I don't see too much explanation of the relevance of ,eg, Esau. Paul just seems to assume people know.

Not perhaps a huge point, but I am struck between the background knowledge Paul seems to assume, and the lack of background knowledge the Gospel writers (except Matthew) seem to assume.

Bernard Muller

Bernard replies: I meant human beings in a flesh and blood form.
Paul was making a point that humans, in their earthly form (with corruptable flesh and blood) will require transformation/transfiguration "in a flash" before going to heaven. Their body will become a "spiritual body". Their old body is to be swallowed by immortality.


SNIPPED

Bernard replies: I think you must be referring to Galatians 4: the other son is Ishmael, by the way, not Esau. Sarah is the free woman but never named (as for Ishmael). I read again the passage and I still think it is rather stand-alone. Knowledge of untold biblical details does not seem necessary to follow Paul's discussion.
Paul also goes over Abraham, Sarah and Isaac in Romans 4, but again I do not see why details not given here by Paul are necessary. Everything which needs to be said is done so, and the readers can follow Paul's argument to the end.
I also think those Gentiles Christians, once interested in the OT, would know some of the essential from the few Jews turned Christians among them, and also the God fearers turned Christians.

Best regards, Bernard

Steven Carr

Bernard: "flesh and blood" is used twice in Paul's epistles and clearly mean, according to their context, human beings (1Cor15:50,Gal1:16). Don't you think that this expression, in Greek, would not be clearly understood by Greek-speaking? Even if it is a Semitism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steven: 'Flesh and blood' is used in 1 Cor 15 to mean 'human beings'? As in 'Human beings will not inherit the kingdom of God'

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



Bernard replies: I meant human beings in a flesh and blood form.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CARR (Now)

So in Galatians 1:6, Paul means he did not consult with human beings in flesh-and-blood form? In what form were the human beings that he consulted with?

You wrote '..clearly mean, according to their context, human beings.'

Paul's usage of flesh and blood in 1 Cor. 15 is different from his usage on Gal. 1:6. They just can't both mean the same thing. He cannot be stressing the corruptible nature of the flesh in both contexts.

Unless Paul means in Galatians that he consulted with beings that were not flesh-and-blood. I think he might mean that. Not sure.

(Actually Luke seems to imply that human beings will still have flesh and bones, although Paul writes that they will not have flesh and blood)

I still don't think that Christians who knew as little of Jewish customs as Mark's Gospel implies, would find that Paul explains enough of the OT that they could follow his arguments.

Bernard Muller

Quote from Steven CARR

Bernard: Gal1:6 & 1Cor15 relate to flesh & blood humans, as far I can see. The corruptible nature of the flesh is stressed in other parts of 1Cor15. I did not say that Paul used "flesh & blood" to show the corruptible nature of the earthly human body. He wanted to make sure that "flesh & blood" were understood to require a transformation before going to heaven.

Bernard: Actually Paul said he did NOT consult with those. Paul got his gospel by revelation from Jesus Christ. He said his gospel was not man made up (Gal1:11-12)

Bernard: "Luke" was not Paul. That's what Doherty called the riotous diversity. He is right on that one. Early Christians did not think the same. They still don't.

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

<---- Huge paper on Mark in the works.

There is one geography error in Mark best as my new thread can tell. Even natives of a land sometimes make localized goegraphical errors. So this is not necessarily indicative of anything by itself.


Its fallacious to go from "Mark explains a Jewish custom" to "Mark written to Gentiles." Simply speaking, Mark may have been written to a mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Christians. The fact that he does explain customs means that he was at least writing to Gentiles ( a significant number if not exclusively to them).

Mark gets the Jewish handwashing custom wrong. All Jews didn't observe this. Also problematic is Mark's rolling stone ( see Kloner).

If we couple the handwashing custom with the single geography error with the rolling stone we get Mark being outside Palestine IMO. How could a Jew living inside Palestine, filled with Jews, think all Jews washed their hands before eating when this was hardly a universal custom? its impossible IMO.

Was Mark Jewish or Gentile? Could go either way. If Mark was a Jew he was, to put it bluntly, as Paula Fredriksen did, a very stupid Jew and was writing outside Palestine.

Mark is either a Gentile or a stupid Jew//Gentile sympathizer writing, IMO, to strengthen the faith of a predominantly Gentile audience. The pro-Gentile elemenets, reinterpretation of Jesus' commands (e.g. food laws), the Gentile tour, and the explanation of the Jewish customs all, when talken collectively, lead me to this conclusion. I think its Gentile author to Gentile community. It could be an "outside Palestine, stupid, pro-Gentile Jew to predominantly Gentile communuty.

Vinnie

Bernard Muller

Well done Vinnie. That's what I think too.

Ya, I think so also. It was most likely a local Jewish custom in the particular city where the gospel was written, enforced by the local pharisees. "Mark" used that for two things:
a) The disciples, or only one, were/was observed not to do just that, so "Mark" implied they were not like all the Jews (7:5).
b) Later, he used that to show they were not following the Jewish food laws (7:19). By not cleaning their hands, they were prone of eating wee specs of non-Jewish food. (7:15)
On both counts, he got Jesus doing the explanations.
That also says that "Mark" had very little to make his points against Jewish food law and the disciples not being (totally) Jews. Not washing hands was considered evidence for things dear to "Mark": take the Jewish food law out of way and hint the disciples became unJewish (to justify Gentile Christianity).
Of course, all of that came earlier from Paul, but the time went, after Paul's times, when the apostle's teachings were doubted. Confirmation had to come from (allegedly) Jesus and, indirectly but factually, the disciple(s).

Best regards, Bernard