Vinnie

Can you narrow the time frame down to specific years like say 10 bc to 50 ad? It spand like 4 or five centuries. Thats a huge timeframe crossing many areas of study for me to comment on. If you want the Jesus stuff I'll offer my thoughts on that. I am not one for overly specific chronologies of Jesus' life though.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Two. The Gospel authors projected all sorts of their own later beliefs back onto the historical Jesus. This is documented by form criticism and a careful study of the Gospels (food laws, controversy traditions, things learnt in prayer, looking at Josephus and ancient writing standards of the time and so on.

Vinnie

Vinnie

"""""""""Paul doesn't appear to have considered them "tenuous". He apparently believed in them so strongly that he radically changed his life as a result.""""""""


He changed his life because of some radical religious experience. This is narrated by both Paul and Acts.

""""""""There is no evidence in Paul's letters that he or those who shared his beliefs found it embarrassing.""""""""

The tenuous links to the OT (which reek of apologetics and creativity) and reintrepretation of the Messiah demonstrate this well enough.

"""""""There is no evidence in Paul's letters that he found the concept "difficult to cope with". He proudly proclaimed it as central to his theology.""""""""

Yeah. It became the pivotal event if his life and in his churches. We know this already. Your statement is tautological. Those who converted obviously accepted the message.

They were convinced despite its embarrassment (stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks). Nothing changes the fact of crucifixion as a status degradation ritual in the 1ce world.

And that the concept was so heavily apologized by the OT with overly tedious links and backreading shows it was as I say, embarrassing.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Please provide the actual quote. I would be especially interested in whether he really says "must" given the absence of any hard evidence to support such a guess.

But it is interesting to noted what the earliest date is! You suggested that a date as early as 65 was possible but declared around 70CE to be the agreed upon date. This dating by Koester seems consistent with Llyricist's statement. Your claim, OTOH, appears to be a bit more "optimistic".

Papias mentions a text written by Peter's secretary, Mark, but offers no quotes to establish it is the same book and his description doesn't really describe our GMk. Even the Catholic Study Bible admits that "Petrine influence should not be exaggerated." (p.67 of NT section).

Amaleq13

Amaleq13:Paul doesn't appear to have considered them "tenuous". He apparently believed in them so strongly that he radically changed his life as a result.

Part of that experience involved embracing a belief that the Hebrew Bible contained references to Christ crucified. Paul did not consider those references to be "tenuous". Your earlier assertion continues to be unsubstantiated.

There is no evidence in Paul's letters that he or those who shared his beliefs found it embarrassing.

I agree that they are creative but your assertion that they are apologetic and indicative of embarrassment continues to be unsubstantiated.

There is no evidence in Paul's letters that he found the concept "difficult to cope with". He proudly proclaimed it as central to his theology.

The fact remains there is no evidence that Paul found the concept "difficult to cope with" so your earlier assertion continues to be unsubstantiated.

It was a stumbling block and foolishness to Jews and Greeks who did not believe. Your assertion was not about them. Your assertion was that Paul and his fellow believers were embarrassed by their crucified Christ. You have yet to substantiated this assertion.

I have not argued against this general consideration of Paul's time. The evidence of Paul's own letters, however, indicates he and his fellow believers did not share that view with regard to the crucifixion of their Christ. You have yet to show otherwise.

When Paul asserts that his crucified Christ is contained in Hebrew Scripture, there is no indication he is offering an embarrassed apologetic. Instead, he is offering substantiation for the legitimacy of his beliefs. Your reading of embarrassment into Paul has yet to be substantiated.

Please substantiate your claims with something other than your opinion.

Vinnie

Go to bed already! LOL


I quoted Koester accurately. Given time for popularity of Mark to be used by two authors writing ca 100 C.E. a generation should be applied.

At any rate here is the exact text:

"Mark must have been written no later than in the years immediately following the Jewish War, that is, between 70 and 80 C.E."

Wrong again. I will excuse you since you did not have the actual quote even though I represented it accurated. Koester says the LATEST date for Mark is 70 to 80. That does not mean the earliest date is 70. Koester would not be found affirming lyrcist's inaccurate statement that "everyone knows Mark dates after 70 c.e." so please drop it. Some bona fide scholars do date Mark earlier than 70 c.e. Some ar undecided on whether Mark comes slightly before or after 70 C.e. and just opt for Ca. 70 c.e.

Koester also writes on the same page "If the catastrophe of the Jewish war was a catalyst..." IF.

"""""""Papias mentions a text written by Peter's secretary, Mark, but offers no quotes to establish it is the same book and his description doesn't really describe our GMk. Even the Catholic Study Bible admits that "Petrine influence should not be exaggerated." (p.67 of NT section).""""""""

Papias mentions Mark. I don't think Peter had any influence on Mark. Peter Kirby and I had a a good go at this a while back on here. The issue was settled and I even have a paper on my site arguing that Mark was not too fond of the Twelve. Given that Mark programmaticaly dennigrates the apostles and slandered Peter and co. you won't catch me arguing for him being Peter's secretary.

If he was Peter must have been underpaying him and/or pissed him off somehow

Vinnie

Llyricist

Apparently not..

As for the dating, I will concede the point as long as you are counting apologetic "scholars" in the "concesus date range".... however, I don't consider them scholars....

And you mised my point that Paul's ministry predated his letters by a decade or so, .... so that does add to it, and frankly your judgement that 20+ years aren't enough for Paul's teachings to have influenced Mark, is highly questionable. It's plenty of time.... whether it did or not is unknown, but you can't dismiss it entirely as you do and still be doing honest scholarship.

btw I'm not a mythicist per se....I only lean that way since the historicist side seems so desparate and weak. My view is that it could just as easily happened Doherty's or Atwill's way (or even both) as the common perception. Or even Macoby's way for that matter... I like the idea that Jesus was not terribly different than Brian...and James like Reg

rlogan

Ok. Thank you. Now you got me interested. They lied in the gospels (*gasp*). Jesus did not foretell of his own crucifixion.

At the moment, I concede that I cannot find in the early Pauline corpus a reference unambiguously indicating that the crucifixion was fulfilling HB prophesy.

let me mull those over for a while.

Peter Kirby

rlogan stated that Isaiah 53:3-5 are "requirements of the messiah."

I wrote to rlogan: "What do you know about the debate over the interpretation of the servant songs in Isaiah?"

I want to make it clear that the comment wasn't snooty. (It is not easy to infer "tone of voice" with the written word.)

If we are going to pursue the question of Isaiah 53 and related passages in Isaiah, I would like to start a new thread.

I previously posted to IIDB a collection of quotes on the servant of Isaiah from Richard J. Clifford, R. N. Whybray, John Scullion, Walter Brueggemann, and Donald Juel. That post can serve as an opening statement, to be submitted for comments.

Concerning the articles you mention: I will pass on buying an '85 Tyndale Bulletin issue. Likewise with Westminster Theological Journal. I got frustrated searching Eisenbrauns on how to order back issues of the Bulletin of Biblical Research. You may wish to present information in some of these articles.

I will be happy to read Merrill's articles in the Bibliotheca Sacra in the uni library. Driver-Neubauer can also be checked out.

This looks like it could be a lot of fun. What do you think?

best,
Peter Kirby

rlogan

Peter - First my sincere apology. I have the deepest respect for your scholarship. (duh, who wouldn't) So when you asked the question, the first thing I did was assemble a bibliography so that I could size up the situation.

My University carries electronic subscriptions to Journal of biblical Literature, Review of biblical Literature, and a few others. The bleeping place doesn't carry the journals those articles were in. So I SPOOFED ya. I was VERY curious if you would answer, or if it was merely a slap.

Now as it so happens, I do think its a good idea. I found some other stuff too. Here's most of what I put together:
__________________________-
Gordon D. Kirchhevel, "Who's Who and What's What in Isaiah 53," Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 (2003): 127-132.

R.E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 13. Sheffield: JSOT, 1980. Pbk. ISBN: 0905774620. pp.131.


David J.A. Clines, He, We, and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 1. Sheffield: JSOT, 1976. Pbk. ISBN: 0905774000. pp.65.

S.R. Driver & A.D. Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish Interpreters, Vol. 2: Translations. Introduction by E. B. Pusey. Prolegomenon by Raphael Loewe. Library of Biblical Studies. New York: Ktav, 1969.

William J. Dumbrell, "The Purpose of the Book of Isaiah," Tyndale Bulletin 36 (1985): 111-28.

Eugene Merrill, "The Literary Character of Isaiah 40-55: Part 1: Survey of a Century of Studies on Isaiah 40-55," Bibliotheca Sacra 144: 573 (1987): 24-43. Eugene Merrill, "The Literary Character of Isaiah 40-55: Part 2: Literary Genres in Isaiah 40-55," Bibliotheca Sacra 144: 574 (1987): 144-155.

J. Barton Payne, "Eighth Century Israelitish Background of Isaiah 40-66," Westminster Theological Journal 29.2 (1967): 179-190. J. Barton Payne, "Eighth Century Israelitish Background of Isaiah 40-66: Part II," Westminster Theological Journal 30.1 (1967): 50-58. J. Barton Payne, "Eighth Century Israelitish Background of Isaiah 40-66: Part III," Westminster Theological Journal 30.2 (1968): 185-203.

Edward J. Young, Isaiah Fifty-Three. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.

Rikki E. Watts, "Consolation or Confrontation: Isaiah 40-55 and the Delay of the New Exodus," Tyndale Bulletin 41.1 (1990): 31-59.
_______________________________


I was going to try an end-run around ordering those articles through a friend.

So let me work on those, and i am actually VERY interested in the ones you can check out, yes!

Thank you Peter.