Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 02-21-2013, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Very interesting stuff, Jake.

Where does this analysis place gMark? Still first?

It may be that the priority of Mark only indicates that canonical Mark more closely reflects an urgospel than canonical Luke or canonical Matthew. This was Lachman’s observation so many years ago, and the so called “Lachmann Fallacy” is itself a misunderstanding by those (B. C. Butler, W. R. Farmer, Matthew priortists et. al.) who thoroughly misinterpreted Lachman’s work. I think that Lachman was probably pointing in the right direction, toward an early version of Mark, i.e. urMark.

IOW IIUC gMark was not as extensively revised.

Something that occurred to me reading your post was the tension between the Greek and Jewish communities in Alexandria at this time. Might that attitude be reflected in gMark?

When was "at this time"?

I would argue on the basis of the Latinisms in gMark that the text was written in Rome, by a Greek speaker in a Latin language environment where Greek was an essential language.

TedM · 02-21-2013, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But I gave you my logical reasoning as to why I disagree with you already. What more is to be said? There is no point to going through individual passages spin. I already have said I personally wouldn't find various passages to be Messianic. But my personal interpretation is not what is being discussed here.

You've probably been told all your christian life that the HB is full of messianic references.

No. I always thought there were about 10 references. Edit: as I think more, I don't remember having an idea of number -- just that there were enough of good quality to make a clear link to Jesus. When I looked at those main ones 10 years ago I was surprised at how vague, historically questionable, and inconsistent they appeared to be. It was when I read Isaiah that I realized there were lots of references that could be taken as Messianic and it was when I discovered the works of Alfred Edersheim that I realized the Jewish people considered hundreds of passages to be about the Messianic age.

Quote:

There is no doubt that some of this eisegetical analysis was done before the emergence of christian theology. The Jews were responsible for messianic expectation and they passed the process of investigation on to the emergent christians. These were in the process of repackaging the Jewish idea of the messiah to fit the dying savior whose sacrifice saved.

My OP didn't even go that far spin:

Quote:

4. OT prophecies of a Messiah who would save Israel from their sins. Throughout OT.

My premise doesn't include a dying savior. Nor does it include personal salvation. As such I'd say my premise is reasonable even if the ONLY expectation was for a messiah-king military leader was to come and save the nation of Israel, which was suffering due to their sins (which was always the reason for their sufferings according to the OT).

My inferences put it together in a what I think is a logical way in relationship to a Passover crucifixion, which is what I am claiming the early Christians could have done (remember too that his followers were said to have swords when Jesus was arrested--and Peter supposedly cut off an ear!).

Quote:

The reality of Jewish messianic expectation has been clarified by the discovery of the DSS. Much of the scholarly speculation of the 19th c. has gone out the window and the book has been rewritten on the subject, for in the scrolls we have literature directly from the era and that helps to distinguish the thought of the time from that of expectation under the rabbis. You know next to nothing about the foundations of early christian thought. There are no indications of how the earliest notions of christian "messianism" were formulated, as we only have the gospels and the letters and no window into the formation, so your bizarre assumptions have no known connection with the process,

My OP premise #4 is IMO good enough. However, if you want to talk about the DSS, I have just looked up some info to discover a definite development of thought around the time of Jesus reflected in the "Messianic Apocalypse (4q521) which adds resurrection of the dead, healing and teachings to the poor to the mix of expectations:

http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/peo...bor/4q521.html

Quote:

[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will
stray from the commandments of the holy ones.
Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service!
All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this?
For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name.
Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.
And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom.
He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent]
And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .]
For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news
to the poor
. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)

As the author, James Tabor concludes:

Quote:

Of course, this fragment alone does not settle our attempts to identify the people of the Scrolls—whether they should be labeled as Essenes, Sadducees, Zealots, Pharisees, Nazarenes, Ebionites, or a unique blend of their own amalgamation. However, the text does provide a most direct and significant example of a common messianic hope among the followers of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Teacher of Righteousness.

Jesus is clearly a friend of the poor in the Gospels, and healer and a defender of resurrection. No wonder his followers contemplated the idea that he, a suspected Messiah, was resurrected!

This is even more evidence for the 2000 year old Jewish expectation for a gospels-style Messiah figure than I would have expected to find. And, there is nothing extraordinary required of a person of that time to preach to the poor, gain a reputation as a healer, and defender of resurrection. Anyone could do that!

SO I see no need for you to any longer appeal to a later christian influence and apologetics to explain the context I have said existed at the time of Jesus. The amalgamation you see of 'random references' and 'nonsense' had occurred already within the Jewish culture by the time JTB and Jesus were referenced in the literature.

In any case, my premise #4 never required anything more than the king-messiah idea that you favor.

jakejonesiv · 02-21-2013, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Something that occurred to me reading your post was the tension between the Greek and Jewish communities in Alexandria at this time. ...

When was "at this time"?

120's CE, shortly after the second Jewish revolt.
Jake

rlogan · 02-21-2013, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I would argue on the basis of the Latinisms in gMark that the text was written in Rome, by a Greek speaker in a Latin language environment where Greek was an essential language.

I'm sure a lot of people would enjoy very much hearing this argument detailed. Maybe you could do a thread on that.

You're going to write in the language you are marketing the piece with, not necessarily in the language you have the best command over personally. So we can't say Rome means Latin, sure.

spin · 02-21-2013, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But I gave you my logical reasoning as to why I disagree with you already. What more is to be said? There is no point to going through individual passages spin. I already have said I personally wouldn't find various passages to be Messianic. But my personal interpretation is not what is being discussed here.

You've probably been told all your christian life that the HB is full of messianic references.

No. I always thought there were about 10 references. Edit: as I think more, I don't remember having an idea of number -- just that there were enough of good quality to make a clear link to Jesus. When I looked at those main ones 10 years ago I was surprised at how vague, historically questionable, and inconsistent they appeared to be. It was when I read Isaiah that I realized there were lots of references that could be taken as Messianic and it was when I discovered the works of Alfred Edersheim that I realized the Jewish people considered hundreds of passages to be about the Messianic age.

You seem to have lived a sheltered christian life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

There is no doubt that some of this eisegetical analysis was done before the emergence of christian theology. The Jews were responsible for messianic expectation and they passed the process of investigation on to the emergent christians. These were in the process of repackaging the Jewish idea of the messiah to fit the dying savior whose sacrifice saved.

My OP didn't even go that far spin:

Quote:

4. OT prophecies of a Messiah who would save Israel from their sins. Throughout OT.

My premise doesn't include a dying savior....

Salvation always comes at a cost there, TedM. Can you think of an ancient savior who did not die?

Messiahs on the other hand have a job to do in this world and that is to liberate the Jews from oppression. But you're not talking about messiahs, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...Nor does it include personal salvation. As such I'd say my premise is reasonable even if the ONLY expectation was for a messiah-king military leader was to come and save the nation of Israel, which was suffering due to their sins (which was always the reason for their sufferings according to the OT).

You're back to talking about messiahs. I thought you'd gained some wisdom and decided it was better not to talk about messiahs. But hell, you can't keep a good man down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

My inferences put it together in a what I think is a logical way in relationship to a Passover crucifixion, which is what I am claiming the early Christians could have done (remember too that his followers were said to have swords when Jesus was arrested--and Peter supposedly cut off an ear!).

These reputed people we are led to believe somehow perceived that Jesus was a non-dying savior-type non-Jewish messiah who somehow fulfilled Jewish expectations of a messiah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

The reality of Jewish messianic expectation has been clarified by the discovery of the DSS. Much of the scholarly speculation of the 19th c. has gone out the window and the book has been rewritten on the subject, for in the scrolls we have literature directly from the era and that helps to distinguish the thought of the time from that of expectation under the rabbis. You know next to nothing about the foundations of early christian thought. There are no indications of how the earliest notions of christian "messianism" were formulated, as we only have the gospels and the letters and no window into the formation, so your bizarre assumptions have no known connection with the process,

My OP premise #4 is IMO good enough.

Despite the fact that it was obvious that there was nothing messianic in the portrayal of Jesus. You just want a someone that was expected so that you can hook your speculation onto it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

However, if you want to talk about the DSS, I have just looked up some info to discover a definite development of thought around the time of Jesus reflected in the "Messianic Apocalypse (4q521) which adds resurrection of the dead, healing and teachings to the poor to the mix of expectations:

It is a strange choice for you to make for all this text says about the messiah is "[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah". Nothing more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/peo...bor/4q521.html

Quote:

[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will
stray from the commandments of the holy ones.
Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service!
All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this?
For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name.
Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.
And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom.
He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent]
And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .]
For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news
to the poor
. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)

As the author, James Tabor concludes:

Quote:

Of course, this fragment alone does not settle our attempts to identify the people of the Scrolls—whether they should be labeled as Essenes, Sadducees, Zealots, Pharisees, Nazarenes, Ebionites, or a unique blend of their own amalgamation. However, the text does provide a most direct and significant example of a common messianic hope among the followers of John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Teacher of Righteousness.

Jesus is clearly a friend of the poor in the Gospels, and healer and a defender of resurrection. No wonder his followers contemplated the idea that he, a suspected Messiah, was resurrected!

But Tabor is as usual spouting nonsense. John made it clear that he was not the messiah and the ToR was no messiah either, though he was apparently a founder of a religious movement. You're scraping the barrel, TedM, appealing to Tabor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

This is even more evidence for the 2000 year old Jewish expectation for a gospels-style Messiah figure than I would have expected to find.

Sorry, but did you actually read the passage? Cutting through your downright ridiculous rhetoric here ("a gospels-style Messiah figure", Jesus!), the Jewish expectation indicated in the text was for the eschaton, which incidentally was accompanied by the messiah. The christian literature was written in the wake of such ideas, so there is nothing unusual that it reflects eschatological ideas cribbed from the Jews.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

And, there is nothing extraordinary required of a person of that time to preach to the poor, gain a reputation as a healer, and defender of resurrection. Anyone could do that!

SO I see no need for you to any longer appeal to a later christian influence and apologetics to explain the context I have said existed at the time of Jesus. The amalgamation you see of 'random references' and 'nonsense' had occurred already within the Jewish culture by the time JTB and Jesus were referenced in the literature.

The Jewish messiah was certainly expected before the reputed time of Jesus as I have already made clear in referring to the DSS and the Psalms of Solomon. Pity that there is no reason to relate that to Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

In any case, my premise #4 never required anything more than the king-messiah idea that you favor.

"[No]thing more than a king-messiah." That's all!!! Sorry TedM, but that is certainly what you haven't got. Neither a king, nor a messiah. Then you respond, but I don't need a messiah, nor a king: I just need a savior who doesn't die to save anyone, but a savior anyway, not dying, but still saving his people from their sins. If you have a savior, who saves his people from their sins, what evidence do you have for one, at least perceived by the people of the reputed time of Jesus?

spin · 02-21-2013, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Something that occurred to me reading your post was the tension between the Greek and Jewish communities in Alexandria at this time. ...

When was "at this time"?

120's CE, shortly after the second Jewish revolt.

130s. But I understand what you mean. Thanks.

Horatio Parker · 02-21-2013, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

IOW IIUC gMark was not as extensively revised.

Something that occurred to me reading your post was the tension between the Greek and Jewish communities in Alexandria at this time. Might that attitude be reflected in gMark?

When was "at this time"?

I would argue on the basis of the Latinisms in gMark that the text was written in Rome, by a Greek speaker in a Latin language environment where Greek was an essential language.

I was thinking of Philo's embassy to Caligula. IIUC the problem began with Rome's conquest of Egypt and the subsequent loss of Greek privilege there.

spin · 02-21-2013, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I would argue on the basis of the Latinisms in gMark that the text was written in Rome, by a Greek speaker in a Latin language environment where Greek was an essential language.

I'm sure a lot of people would enjoy very much hearing this argument detailed. Maybe you could do a thread on that.

Here's the personal Wiki article that gathers the evidence in a Wiki-presentable manner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

You're going to write in the language you are marketing the piece with, not necessarily in the language you have the best command over personally. So we can't say Rome means Latin, sure.

I'm not sure I grasp your implications here, but Rome had a huge body of Greek speakers in the first centuries of this era, many slaves, some of whom were employed as teachers, so texts in Greek would not be strange. We then need to explain the Latin phenomena in GMark and a Roman origin would supply a certain context for such a linguistic context.

Incidentally, there was a library at Herculaneum, a place destroyed by the Vesuvius eruption that featured important books by the philosopher Philodemus, who wrote in Greek, so they were preserved, mainly burnt to charcoal, but have been transcribed.

spin · 02-21-2013, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

IOW IIUC gMark was not as extensively revised.

Something that occurred to me reading your post was the tension between the Greek and Jewish communities in Alexandria at this time. Might that attitude be reflected in gMark?

When was "at this time"?

I would argue on the basis of the Latinisms in gMark that the text was written in Rome, by a Greek speaker in a Latin language environment where Greek was an essential language.

I was thinking of Philo's embassy to Caligula. IIUC the problem began with Rome's conquest of Egypt and the subsequent loss of Greek privilege there.

Sorry, I mistook your comment to have been related you your immediately previous remark about GMark.

TedM · 02-21-2013, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

However, if you want to talk about the DSS, I have just looked up some info to discover a definite development of thought around the time of Jesus reflected in the "Messianic Apocalypse (4q521) which adds resurrection of the dead, healing and teachings to the poor to the mix of expectations:

It is a strange choice for you to make for all this text says about the messiah is "[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah". Nothing more.

Ok, here is the passage again:

http://religiousstudies.uncc.edu/peo...bor/4q521.html

Quote:

[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will
stray from the commandments of the holy ones.
Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service!
All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this?
For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name.
Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power.
And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom.
He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent]
And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy . . .
And the fr[uit . . .] will not be delayed for anyone.
And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He . . .]
For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news
to the poor
. . .He will lead the uprooted and knowledge . . . and smoke (?)

Really? So you think the fact that the passage starts out mentioning the Messiah is 'incidental', and that it really is God (the Lord) who brings the good news to the poor? Even when in Isaiah 61 a passage that attributes bringing the good news to the afflicted and liberating the captives not to God but to one who was anointed (ie a special person--hint, hint)?:

Quote:

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
Because the Lord has anointed me
To bring good news to the afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives
And freedom to prisoners;
2 To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord
And the day of vengeance of our God;

No connection? Was this not seen as Messianic either? Come on..

And you also believe that the gospel writers who quote these ideas were just picking them out of thin air or the OT on their own with no inspiration whatsoever from the DSS community? It's amazing how hard you clutch onto your claims, spin, despite the evidences you are given to the contrary.

I'll end with another quote from the same link:

Quote:

Line 11 of this text also contains another highly striking feature. Indeed, it appears to be the closest and most direct linguistic parallel to a New Testament text that we have yet discovered. The line reads:

For he will heal the wounded, resurrect the dead,
and proclaim glad tiding to the poor.

In both Matthew and Luke we read of a deputation that John the Baptist sends to Jesus while John is imprisoned. John's disciples ask Jesus, "Are you the coming one, or do we look for another?" The story is thus tightly framed around the question of messianic identity: what will the signs of the true Messiah be? Jesus answers:

Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the glad tiding preached to them (Luke 7:22-23 and Matthew 11:4-5).

This reply is cast in the style of a precise formula. It reflects a very early Christian expectation of the signs of the messianic age and the marks for identification of the Messiah. One indication that we have here a very early Christian tradition is that these passages from Luke and Matthew come from the source scholars have designated as Q, from the German word Quelle, meaning "source." According to most N.T. scholars, Q was a collection of the "Sayings of Jesus," somewhat like the Gospel of Thomas in genre, which was compiled in the middle of the first century, but before our finished Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written.

The phrase at the end of line 11, about "proclaiming glad tidings to the poor" is a direct quotation from Isaiah 61:1, which tells of an "anointed one" (i.e., messiah) who will work various signs before the Day of the Lord. This passage is quite important in the Gospel of Luke. In fact, he highlights it as the inauguration of the Messianic mission of Jesus. According to Luke, it is this very verse from Isaiah which Jesus reads and claims to fulfill in his home town synagogue of Nazareth.

However, what is most noteworthy is that Isaiah 61:1 says nothing about this Anointed One raising the dead. Indeed, in the entire Hebrew Bible there is nothing about a messiah figure raising the dead. Yet, when we turn to the Q Source, which Luke and Matthew quote, regarding the "signs of the Messiah," we find the two phrases linked: "the dead are raised up, the poor have the glad tidings preached to them," precisely as we have in our Qumran text. Luke makes more than passing use of this notion of the "resurrection of the dead" as a sign of the age of the Messiah. In the two places he quotes Isaiah 61:1 he also mentions specific cases of resurrection of the dead: as Elijah once raised the son of the widow, Jesus now raises the son of the widow from Nain (Luke 4:26; 7:11-17). This is hardly accidental, as the close juxtaposition of the texts makes clear.

It is also significant that this section of the Q Source is dealing with traditions shared between the community of John the Baptist and that of the early followers of Jesus. The close connections between John the Baptist and the community that produced the Scrolls have been pointed out by many scholars. Through this Dead Sea Scroll fragment, coupled with the early Q Source of the Gospels, we are taken back to a very early common tradition within Palestinian Judaism regarding the "signs of the Messiah."

Admit it spin. The gospel Jesus was represented to be the coming Messiah, inspired in part by the Jewsish DSS community portrayal of the Messiah.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.