Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 03-19-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

As for the connection between the thief in the night and coming out to Jesus as if against a thief, I am of the opinion that Mark preceded Matthew and Luke. If Mark intended such a connection, why did he fail to give the saying about the thief in the night?

give it to whom ? The convulsives know the mystery of the kingdom, to everyone else everything is given in ciphers (my loose translation of 4:11).

Quote:

If either Matthew or Luke intended it, why did they use different terms for the thief?

hmm....worth pondering

Quote:

I find this kind of alleged connection extraordinarily unpersuasive.

Ben.

I know you do, Ben, your finding is not that extraordinarily unpredictable.

Jiri

Ben C Smith · 03-20-2007, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

give it to whom ? The convulsives know the mystery of the kingdom, to everyone else everything is given in ciphers (my loose translation of 4:11).

You noted the possible irony of the one whose day was supposed to come as a thief in the night being set about as if he were a robber. This statement, I presumed (perhaps mistakenly), was supposed to connect back to your earlier statement that Mark is often ironic.

Yet Mark records only half of the possible irony. The saying about the thief in the night is found only in Matthew and Luke. Did Mark know the saying and omit it? Possibly. Did his readership know the saying and make the mental connection? Possibly. But how on earth would you demonstrate it?

You say that things were given out in ciphers, but in Mark the saying about the thief is not given out at all.

Ben.

Chili · 03-20-2007, 06:59 AM

But like a thief in the night has nothing to do with thieving in the dark but coming at a time that is not known because the house must be empty and vacant = beyond theology = beyond Mark.

Golding says that we cannot even have one eye asquint towards the coming of the son of man and that is on broad daylight while working on our Spire.

Solo · 03-20-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

You noted the possible irony of the one whose day was supposed to come as a thief in the night being set about as if he were a robber. This statement, I presumed (perhaps mistakenly), was supposed to connect back to your earlier statement that Mark is often ironic.

Yet Mark records only half of the possible irony. The saying about the thief in the night is found only in Matthew and Luke. Did Mark know the saying and omit it? Possibly. Did his readership know the saying and make the mental connection? Possibly. But how on earth would you demonstrate it?

1 Thessalonians 5:2

Quote:

You say that things were given out in ciphers, but in Mark the saying about the thief is not given out at all.

Ben.

But don't you understand what I am saying ? Mark allegorizes the evocative saying of Paul. Now, again, it's a wild guess that Mark did not have Paul's text before him, but that he knew some form of oral rendition of it. Luke reads the "I taught you by day in the temple and you did not arrest me" of Mark and decides that Mark meant to contrast the day with the night and the dark powers thereof which is true but that misses Mark's irony.

Luke (16:16) and Matthew (11:12) of course elaborate on "the violence" of the Lord's coming (just as Mohammed does in describing to Aisha the appearance of Gabriel), so the saying of Paul, which stresses the sudden, unexpected, surreptitious nature of the "event", was in some degree overlayed in the lore. I find it extremely interesting that the John's parable (10:1-6) where he unites the dual reference (lestes-kleptes), is made expressly to reject private revelations of Christ unless they receive church authority. Parousia did not materialize, the church did.

Jiri

gstafleu · 03-20-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

As I recall, when I suggested one of those primary texts, Judges 13, the connection was greeted rather coolly.

Correct, I missed the mark on that one, looking too much at what wasn't there rather than looking at what was there.

Quote:

But, just to keep us on track, what is wrong with the following scenario?

1. Augustus is reputed to have been born of a god. This motif is not uncommon in antiquity (Alexander is given a similar birth, for example; see Plutarch, Life of Alexander).

2. The gospel tradents, right from the beginning, set up Jesus as an alternate to the Roman imperial cult. This can be shown by the rich overlap of terminology and conceptual imagery between imperial propaganda (especially Augustan) and Christian tradition (my concrete example is the Priene inscription, but there are certainly others; see Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East and Evans, Commentary on Mark 8.27-16.20).

3. Since it was customary to give your preferred savior a miraculous birth, and since Augustus was given one, the gospel tradents decided to give one to Jesus. To do so, they mined their usual materials, to wit, the Hebrew scriptures. From the LXX version of Isaiah 7.14 somebody got the idea for a virgin birth, and from Judges 13 somebody got much of the structure of the narrative. Other parts of the OT contributed features, too (the endangerment of Jesus as a child in Matthew, for example, may have been inspired by the endangerment of Moses as a child), along with very general Jewish and Greco-Roman ideas about what a fitting birth should look like.

When just considering the nativity it sounds like a good scenario to me. It tells us where the pagan reference came from, why it was used and how it was fitted into Jewish tradition.

Quote:

Not that I am absolutely committing to such a scenario, but is there anything missing in it?

As I've said before, I see two central elements of Christian mythology that stand outside the Jewish tradition in their essence, but seem to belong more easily to pagan traditions: the nativity and the passion. It would be nice if an explanation for one was also applicable to the other in some fashion. I'm not saying this isn't the case, mind you. Does the idea of a deity--or a reasonable facsimile thereof--sacrificing itself and then resurrecting, connect with the thesis that "The gospel tradents, right from the beginning, set up Jesus as an alternate to the Roman imperial cult."? If so, does it also work for the ritual version of the passion, the "eat my body drink my blood" bit of the Eucharist?

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith · 03-20-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Does the idea of a deity--or a reasonable facsimile thereof--sacrificing itself and then resurrecting, connect with the thesis that "The gospel tradents, right from the beginning, set up Jesus as an alternate to the Roman imperial cult."?

Well, in a way. The resurrection was seen as the first instance (Paul calls it the firstfruits) of the general resurrection expected by many Jews at the turning point of the ages. This Jewish turning point of the ages corresponded cross-culturally to the new age (golden race, age of Saturn, and so forth) proclaimed on behalf of Augustus by Virgil (for example); the Jewish age to come was set opposite and against the pax Romana.

Quote:

If so, does it also work for the ritual version of the passion, the "eat my body drink my blood" bit of the Eucharist?

Not going to touch that one right now.

I have many more questions than answers on the eucharist.

Ben.

Solo · 03-20-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C. Smith

3. Since it was customary to give your preferred savior a miraculous birth, and since Augustus was given one, the gospel tradents decided to give one to Jesus. To do so, they mined their usual materials, to wit, the Hebrew scriptures. From the LXX version of Isaiah 7.14 somebody got the idea for a virgin birth, and from Judges 13 somebody got much of the structure of the narrative . Other parts of the OT contributed features, too (the endangerment of Jesus as a child in Matthew, for example, may have been inspired by the endangerment of Moses as a child), along with very general Jewish and Greco-Roman ideas about what a fitting birth should look like.

When just considering the nativity it sounds like a good scenario to me. It tells us where the pagan reference came from, why it was used and how it was fitted into Jewish tradition.
Gerard Stafleu

Gerard, you got snookered big time on Judges 13, let me tell you....you remember my reaction to it ? (was this :rolling

Here is why:

Quote:

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth.

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were [now] well stricken in years.

And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,

According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.

And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.

And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

And when Zacharias saw [him], he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.

But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.

And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.

And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.

And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.

And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months
Luke 1:5-24

Now, you understand why I called Ben 'pig-headed'. Oh, the importance of going to primary sources !

Jiri

gstafleu · 03-21-2007, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Gerard, you got snookered big time on Judges 13, let me tell you....you remember my reaction to it ? (was this :rolling

Here is why:

Well, I'll be the last one to deny the presence of innate dumbness in what passes for my thought processes. Nevertheless, let's be our own Aarne-Thompson and produce a little classification.

Tale Type 1: Couple has not had children yet. Angel communicates to (part of) couple that with divine help they will now have a child. Child will be special to God.

TT 1.1: Couple is old married couple but childless due to infertility, not for lack of trying. No virginity implied.

TT 1.2: Couple has not yet had sex, woman is virgin. No infertility implied.

In Luke 1:11-24 we have TT 1.1, in 26-38 we have TT 1.2. In Judges 13 we have TT 1.1, corresponding in other details as well with Luke 1:11-24.

Now remember that this classification just goes by the form, by the plot elements used. It doesn't concern itself with the meaning of the story. That is what I meant when I said the Judges 13 story resembles the nativity story in (part of) its form, not in its essence. We can then see that both the Elizabeth and the Maria stories in Luke are of TT 1, be it of different sub-types. TT 1.2 is a new type, while TT 1.1 already occurs in the OT. The fact that both are of root-type TT 1 makes it easier for the audience to accept the new TT 1.2 as legitimate: "Oh, sure, that is sort of like Judges 13, isn't it?"

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith · 03-21-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Here is why....

And then you quote a story that has long been thought to parallel the birth of Jesus himself. What are you trying to say?

Quote:

Oh, the importance of going to primary sources !

Are you under the impression that a person who runs a site called TextExcavation would be against going to the primary sources? Again, what exactly are you trying to say. I do not get it.

Ben.

Solo · 03-21-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C. Smith

And then you quote a story that has long been thought to parallel the birth of Jesus himself. What are you trying to say?

John the Baptist born of a virgin, Ben ? Samson's birth paralleling with Jesus' and not John's ? What can I say ? :huh:

(...besides I already said it)

Jiri

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

03-20-2007, 06:59 AM	#123
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	But like a thief in the night has nothing to do with thieving in the dark but coming at a time that is not known because the house must be empty and vacant = beyond theology = beyond Mark. Golding says that we cannot even have one eye asquint towards the coming of the son of man and that is on broad daylight while working on our Spire.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.