jgibson000

How so?

JG

Chris Weimer

Obviously. Listen carefully.

You said that the note in the Gospel of the Hebrews where the word brother wasn't being used literally was evidence against the reference in Galatians (and also now in another part of the Gospel of the Hebrews) not being used literally.

In order for that to work logically, you'd have to assume that the position on the reference in Galatians (and the other one in GHebrews) assumes that brother must be taken literally at all time.

That's a strawman. No such position exists. People take it literally for other reasons. No one says that it has to mean a literally brother because the word is brother.

So either you've yourself an illogical argument, or you've created a strawman.

Why?

Oh, so you're taking the gospels literally. Isn't this the same sort of error you chided James Tabor on? And now you yourself have committed it.

Solo

If James the Just was the James of Mk 6:3, then Jesus' verity in 6:4 about a prophet despised among his kin, and in his own house, would have been voided.

Jiri

jgibson000

Only if the castigation were meant to be seen as applying to all time. It doesn't does it? Does it actually say that Jesus kin would never accept him any more than 8:33 says that Peter would always be Satan and would always "think the things of men"?

JG

Chris Weimer

It's even simpler. If we want to go Jiri's route - if Thomas' saying about James the Just is authentic, than James too is something of a prophet.

But sticking to the text in context, Mark is talking about the townspeople. Kin has long applications that doesn't refer to only the nuclear family. Mark specified country first, giving that utmost importance. Jesus was ejected from Nazareth, which then become the target of his reproach.

Solo

Jeffrey, there is no comparison between the two. In the classical interpretation of the incident at C-P, Jesus calls Peter "Satan" because Peter obstructs the work of God. Peter does not always obstructs the work of God. But in 6:4, Jesus gives a general rule of thumb: He says "a prophet is not without honour except in his country, among his relatives and in his house". He does not say that this rule only applies until the prophet is dead.

Besides, on Markan terms there is the problem of 3:21 where the family actually tries to put Jesus away because they perceive him as stark mad (and ergo a danger to himself). What made them change their mind ? Perhaps you are ready to believe that James, upon learning that his brother's madness got him killed down south in a run-in with the authorities, would drop everything and hurry to Jerusalem himself to start a cult of Jesus expected back from the dead as Messiah with a Davidic pedigree (cf 6:3). Well, I am not.

Jiri

jgibson000

No it isn't. It's because he objects to the idea of a suffering Messiah (you are reading Matthew into the Markan text as well as misunderstanding what SKANDALON means).


Right. He just, in conformity with Mk. 8:38, abandons and denies Jesus later in what (as Weeden has shown) is Mark's portrayal of him as still thinking the things of men.

This is not a general rule (no more than its parallel in Jn 4:45 is a general rule about Galileans). It is a (traditional?) proverb which is ad hoc to the situation Jesus finds himself in at Nazareth.

Perhaps it was the same thing that made Paul -- the zealous persecutor of the church, one who was convinced that Jesus was a law breaker cursed by the God of Israel -- change his mind about Jesus and the movement that continued in his name.

Or do you deny that Paul revised his views of Jesus and the divinely sanctioned nature of the early Christian movement?

JG

Solo

Stop quibbling, Jeffrey. Tell me what you think EPIKATARATOS
means.

Which proves what ?

It could be a traditional proverb (Wells thinks so). But it certainly was not meant to be applied to transient situations. I am not convinced by your reading of John's 4:45 as context here. In Mark, Jesus' family (and neighbours) reject his sudden claims to wisdom, and right to forgive sins, because they know him. They know something happened with his head. Matthew and Luke cut the kin out of the proverb for a good reason.

And perhaps all it took was for God to make a fool out of Paul like he did with Jesus. No conversion event tradition exists about James.

[QUOTE]
I deny that Paul revised his views on the man Jesus. He simply laid them aside, and built a memorial to something else. Paul knew Jesus was (made) insane: there was nothing to talk about. Paul (and his congregations) were to decide whether God destroying Jesus (and by extension Paul) was an act of meaningless barbarism, or whether there was a divinely august purpose in it. I am satisfied that Paul proved his case in the long run, even though, of course his conquering Messiah later took forms which would have given Paul fits. But maybe that is how God works.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

1. Which story says that only the twelve attended the last supper? Matthew 26.20 says that Jesus was with the twelve, but does not say that he was with the twelve only. Luke 22.14 says only that the apostles were with Jesus. Mark 14.17 does not even bother to tell us who ate with Jesus; rather, it tells us only who came with Jesus. Furthermore, in Mark 14.18 Jesus says: One of you will betray me. If only the twelve are present, then of course one of you must automatically mean one of the twelve. So why does Jesus, when asked who it will be, have to specify in verse 20 that it will be one of the twelve? Surely the easiest explanation is that Mark is not imagining only the twelve as in attendance.

2. As Jeffrey noted, why assume that the gospel according to the Hebrews is strictly following the synoptic tradition? It fails to do so at other points. What you seem to be engaging in is harmonization of the fundamentalist kind... except that no fundamentalist would attempt to include the gospel of the Hebrews in the harmony!

I have a relatively complete list of the fragments on my site. That page combines all references to any of the so-called Jewish-Christian gospels, but you can see only those that are specifically attributed in antiquity to the gospel of the Hebrews by clicking on the link under text(s) available.

Ben.

jgibson000

In what context?

How do you know this?

Where is Jesus claiming to have wisdom. let alone suddenly, in GMark, let alone in Mk. 6? Where in Mk 6 is there any mention of, let alone incredulity over, and a contending of , Jesus' right to forgive sins or his having done so?

Do the villagers of Nazareth say that -- i.e., that there is something wrong with Jesus' head -- in Mk 6?

Nor does one about Barnabas or Prisca and Aquilla, etc. So what?

JG