Steven Carr

Mark was clearly comparing John the Baptist to Elijah. The NT claims some Jews believed Elijah would come before the Messiah, so Christians who bought into that had to find an Elijah figure.

Holding claims John really was acting out the part of Elijah, but gives no evidence for that. It is just bluster on his part.

So Holding has done absolutely zilch to disprove Helm's claim that Mark deliberately turned John into an Elijah style figure, when John never claimed to be an Elijah style figure.

Oh, and as an aside, while Holding claims to have learned about subtle nuances in Hebrew and Greek, he still has trouble with his mother tongue.

'John was being a normal person in an honor-shame setting who would be tenuous in accepting the honor of baptizing one so great.'

The word Holding wants is 'tentative' or 'timorous'. I doubt that John became tenuous.

Can somebody who struggles with the difference between 'tenuous' and 'tentative' really lecture us on subtleties in Koine Greek?

I did like Holding's dissing of messages from God.

' Helms supposes that the angel has "forgotten to warn Joseph that Judaea is still to volatile for them," as if an angel were omniscient and knew where Joseph was thinking of going.'

So the next time you meet an angel - a messenger from God - remember that they are only human, and might give you wrong messages from God, as you can't expect a messenger from God to have been briefed with all the correct information.

Julian

I must disagree a bit here. They are both aorist, true, but that is an extremely common form in all of the NT. οÏ?αω is a fairly common word in the NT. I couldn't get a count because the TR seems to use OPTANOMAI in stead.

However, I think stylistically they are quite different. The first is typical Pauline indignancy with his bantering argumentative style, whereas the second reads more like pontificating apologetics, stating a bunch of facts.

However, I am biased since I consider all of 1 Cor. 10-15 an interpolation. So, I guess my point is just that to me they read completely differently and the questionably use of a common word in a common form doesn't do much for me. I checked for textual variations but the crappy UBS4 doesn't list any and I don't have any apparatus for that section, but there does seem to be some variation.

Julian

Julian

It is not just an issue over food laws. Paul uses Peter as a polemical device against the Jewish-Christians and their adherence to the law. He seems to have been pestered by other apostles who would preach a different gospel in his congregations, probably a more Jewish variety. What better way to show that it was wrong than by pointing out Peter's shameful behavior? When Peter's buddies showed up "he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." The circumcision here meaning Jewish, of course, i.e. an adherence to the law.

However, Paul did consider them christians and on the same mission to the Jews that he was undertaking to the gentiles, he just didn't agree with their adherence to the law, cf. James as anti-Pauline polemic. Paul was definitely not overly fond of his Jewish colleagues.

Julian

Steven Avery

Hi Steven ..I agree that Holding's apparent view here is hard to understand..

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/helmsr01.html
Fictional Fictions.

Especially hard to understand in the New Testament context, since Joseph was in fact given an angelic warning in the perfect timing of God (after the birth of Messiah in Bethlehem).

Matthew 2:13-14
And when they were departed, behold,
the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying,
Arise, and take the young child and his mother,
and flee into Egypt,
and be thou there until I bring thee word:
for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night,
and departed into Egypt:

Or the next time you hear JPH says something that sounds dubious,
do your own checking, especially of the scripture.

(As you should do with all commentators and web posters).

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Ben C Smith

The one in 9.1 is perfect, not aorist.

Yes.

Jake was not arguing on the basis of style. He said:

Jake was apparently relying on the translation of the passive voice of οÏ?αω as appeared instead of as was seen.

I am not making my own argument here. I am responding to an argument.

I agree. Paul is quite capable both of indignant argumentation and pontificating apologetics.

I know.

You do agree that they mean the same thing with regard to Paul having seen Jesus, and that what Jake claimed is demonstrably false, right?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Whoa, I failed to read this correctly when I said I know in my last post (I thought you were referring to 15.4-11). You regard all six of these chapters as an interpolation?? Yikes.

Ben.

Julian

A neuron badly misfired right at that moment. You even spelled it out for me.

*quietly steps sideways off stage*
I do agree. I don't see how one couldn't.

However, to answer your second post exprssing some surprise in the same breath. Nowhere else in Paul do we find as many proposed interpolations as in 1 Cor. 10-15. We had an earlier thread on Pauline interpolations that has a list. I have some other reasons as well but do not wish to derail this thread. As the text stands, I agree with you regarding 9.1 and 15:5.

Julian

jakejonesiv

1 Cor. 15:3-11 is indeed unique in the Pauline material in that it is the only place where an externally verifiable appearance of Jesus is proposed. Jesus is alleged to have been seen by multiple people at once in objective reality. And if the interpolator had Acts in mind, this applies to Paul's alleged resurrection experience also. Elsewhere in the Pauline material Jesus is known by revelation.

Jesus is passively seen in 9:1. Without the intrusion of 15:3-11 there is no explicit claim of an external or objective appearance of Jesus.

9:1 will not bear the weight of a resurrection appearnce as those in ch 15 or the road to Damascus in Acts. At most you have a hallucination or vision. Ben is offering to import the context ... in on οÏ?αω. (jj4: extraneous comments deleted.)

Of course, the likelyhood that 9:1 is also an interpolation doesn't help the pro appearance team. Aside from the interpolation in 1 Cor 15:3-11, there are no resurrection appearances of Jesus in paul. Think about that for a while. If true, the implications are enormous.

Jake Jones IV

edit by JJ4. I read my post #31 and see that it might be ambiguous. I had no intention of excluding private mystical visions or esctatic experiences. Of course these happened, and are happening right now at the Pentacostal church down the street! My apologies if this has caused confusion.