stephan huller

Gurugeorge

I know you asked Andrew the question but the reason I mentioned the Torah in my post is that this is the thing lurking in the background. As long as you have “notes” or written impressions ABOUT what Jesus did or said there is no conflict with the Torah. Marcionitism begins when something like the Torah emerges within Christianity. The title “gospel” is only limited to the meaning good news in Greek. The Aramaic equivalent would mean messianic pronouncement. The one who WRITES the new Torah is the new Moses

The reason NT scholarship is so pathetic is that it doesn't understand Judaism

Are you aware of the implications of the Talmud? Where the gemara and the Torah disagree Jews are to follow the gemara. Think about that for awhile. A Samaritan shudders when he hears that. Karaism is nothing more than a bottled up rejection of this claim that was simmering in Judaism for centuries. So too Sabbatianism etc. The Zohar is in many ways another Torah even the heavenly Torah. Most white people don't realize how the Zohar is used among the Sephardim and the Donmeh and other neo-Sabbatian traditions. It is a second Torah.

The Mishnah is just a collection of acceptable interpretations of the Law. Its more a less represents ecumenicism within Judaism with Pharisaic Judaism getting 51% percent of the vote. But notice than Elisha ben Abuyah the heretics opinions are included. His student Meir is instrumental in the collection. Yet by the time the Talmud is established (remember the Talmud begins by citing passages in the Mishnah and then offers 'gemara' = Aramaic "completion" or "perfection" = a conclusive commentary and hermeneutic of Mishnah which was in turn the 'limit' of acceptable interpretations of the Torah) the tradition went beyond merely being several communities and traditions bundled under one roof. There was an impetus to shape Judaism into a definitive revelation.

Something loosely similar to this occurred within Christianity after the destruction of the temple - i.e. to go beyond merely a collection of notes or memoirs into a defintiive revelation. I think that the fact that scholarship has alighted upon the name of 'Mark' as the earliest evangelist tells us that someone of this name was active in the period after the destruction of the temple reshaping Christianity from a tradition about the teachings of Jesus into something which rivaled if not eclipsed (and rendered effectively useless) the Law of Moses. The Alexandrian tradition would seem to suggest that he developed Christianity into a mystery religion which rivaled those of paganism.

DCHindley

Isn't this all quite clearly discussed in section 1 of Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History & Development (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Helmut Koester (1990)?

1.1 The Origin of the Term "Gospel" (pp 1-3)
1.2 The Use of the Term "Gospel" in the Pauline Tradition (pp. 4-8, includes Ignatian letters, Deutero-Paulines & Acts)
1.3 The Term "Gospel" in the Gospels of the New Testament (pp. 9-13)
1.4 "Gospel" in the Apostolic Fathers (pp. 14-19)
1.5 The Term "Gospel" in Gospels from the Nag Hammadi Library (pp. 20-23)
1.6 Why Did Written Documents Come to be called "Gospels"? (pp. 24-30)
1.7 From the Oral Tradition to the Written Gospel (pp. 31-42)

Sorry, this is such a basic resource that there is no excuse for not having it in board members' personal libraries. Unfortunately it's OOP and used copies go for $40+ US. However, libraries probably have it ... and they have these things called copy machines. Note how he uses quotations around the word "Gospel" so as to not assume something yet to be proved, so some here might find it unacceptable to the position of a popular writer who is absolutely sure he knows more than a full professor at Harvard Divinity School.

DCH

stephan huller

I was once on a phone call with Koester. He sounds like Professor von Drake from the Mickey Mouse cartoons. Koester did not include the Samaritan use of the term gospel in its Semitic form from the Arabic commentary on the Pentateuch. Therefore his knowledge is deficient

Toto

The paperback version (or via: amazon.co.uk) has a preview of the first pages available for viewing.

aa5874

Well, what source mentioned the "GOSPEL" in reference to any other book?

You are making a FUNDAMENTAL mistake.

You simply cannot make unsubstantiated claims when you have NO evidence of what you say.

Again, please name any book of antiquity which makes NO mention of Jesus and written BEFORE the Jesus stories that mentioned the "GOOD NEWS", or the "GOSPELS" of salvation.

There is no such book.

DCHindley

Stephan,

Do you sound like Martin Sheen?

Please take your pills.

DCH

stephan huller

I am sorry to cast doubt on the absolute authority of Herr Koester. His knowledge is limited to Christian sources which proves decisive here. I did not mean to insult the professor. It was just a personal observation, an impression from my familiarity with his speaking voice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgFdx...eature=related

I think he is still a great scholar. I just thought it was funny. Stop worshiping people. You'll only end up disappointed.

DCHindley

Not worship, but I do feel that many many issues dealt with here on these boards are addressed by this one simple book, by an author who doesn't seem to have an axe to grind.

Why make fun of the fact that he sounds like a typical, well, German academic? He is one! John Kloppenborg-Verbin, I'm sure, sounds Dutch. He doubts that the Hebrew root behind the word euaggelion in the Greek OT (mainly in Trito-Isaiah) had much to do with the understanding of the term in the Greco-Roman world, in spite of it being a commonly held position.

DCH

stephan huller

My father had a thick German accent (though I remember him sounding more like Arnold Schwartzenegger). Maybe that`s just my subconscious at work. BTW whenever I saw American films in Italy they seem to give black men really high pitched screetchy voices. Is this deliberate on the part of the Italian distributers? An unfamiliarity with black people? But I digress ...

Your missing the whole point. I am not saying that bias made Onkel Helmut DISCOUNT the Samaritan evidence. Most scholars don't know the Arabic Commentary even exists. Its the blind spots in his knowledge I am questioning not his scruples as a scholar

stephan huller

I guess my recollection of black people in Italian movies is incorrect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2r6...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQL3Y...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB2qo...eature=related