Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 09-02-2005, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Peter Kirby and Vinnie have decided when Paul was doing his thing.

Not really.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

spin · 09-03-2005, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Not really.

Sorry, yes, rereading your statements more closely, I find Vinnie is the sole/soul culprit.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

The question is whether the letters were written by Paul at a later date, say in the 70s, or whether they were written by someone other than Paul at an even later date.

Vinnie · 09-03-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Peter Kirby and Vinnie have decided when Paul was doing his thing. On what grounds they have done so they have not stated, other than a brief undefined reference to the letter of Clement (c. 96 CE). I have started a thread to see how one can date the Pauline corpus independently from other nt efforts. Perhaps they can enlighten me.

spin

I'd rather drink greygoose than churn through material that shows you that Paul wrote in 50s. I mean if there was some benefit to it other than "convincing a guy named spin on iidb" I might be bothered. But there isn't and I'm not. You could always buy a few books and enlighten yourself.

And i don't even understand your "apart from other nt efforts". How do you date texts in a vacuum?

Vinnie

spin · 09-03-2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I'd rather drink greygoose than churn through material that shows you that Paul wrote in 50s. I mean if there was some benefit to it other than "convincing a guy named spin on iidb" I might be bothered. But there isn't and I'm not. You could always buy a few books and enlighten yourself.

And i don't even understand your "apart from other nt efforts". How do you date texts in a vacuum?

That's the problem, Vinnie. All the rest is window dressing.

You can't assume gospel or Acts material ("other nt efforts"), unless of course you could date them. But you have consistently failed to do so in the past.

And, no, you don't have to convince me. You have to show people here (amongst other places) that there is a reasonable way to date Paul. Arguments tend to taint Paul's information with gospel or Acts data, which isn't kosher if we are trying to work from what Paul understood (as imparted in his writings).

Be nice and shift your brain out of neutral, Vinnie.

spin

DE BERGERAC · 09-04-2005, 03:40 AM

Take:

1) The story about Jesus son of Ananias (Woe to Jerusalem!) in War.
2) The story about Carabas in Philo.
3) The story about three crucified in Josephus' Life.

And you have the basic inspirational framework for the message, Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus.

Whoever wrote the gospels was aware of these texts. Even Josephus (according to "some", says Robert Eisenman) is present in disguise since he is Joseph of Arimathea. In fact, he was (Life) Joseph bar Matthias.

So, Mark's construction takes up these materials and more to bulid his narrative. Hence, he is later than Josephus.

yalla · 09-04-2005, 06:39 PM

DE BERGERAC: "Take:

1) The story about Jesus son of Ananias (Woe to Jerusalem!) in War.
2) The story about Carabas in Philo.
3) The story about three crucified in Josephus' Life.

And you have the basic inspirational framework for the message, Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus.

Whoever wrote the gospels was aware of these texts. Even Josephus (according to "some", says Robert Eisenman) is present in disguise since he is Joseph of Arimathea. In fact, he was (Life) Joseph bar Matthias.

So, Mark's construction takes up these materials and more to bulid his narrative. Hence, he is later than Josephus."

I like that.
Particularly #2....complete with robes, title, "Matthew's" ID in some mss of C[B]arabbass as "Jesus", crown, anti Herod as "King of the Jews"...have I got them all right?

Dunno about Joe as J b M, was'nt that his dad's name as well? Seems a bit far-fetched but I've read worse.

But I'll add this [tentatively] to my growing list of reasons as to why I date "Mark" much later than the orthodox position.

Big presuumption follows:
"Mark" is pretty ignorant of details re Judaism [sabbath, hand washing, synagogues, rabbis], Palestinian geography [it's a long way to Tyre and back by the circle route]...etc..
So what was his source of information?
What did he know and who/how did he know it?

Any specifics?

DE BERGERAC · 09-05-2005, 12:12 PM

The fact is that the existence of a place called Arimathea is not an established fact for NT times. Yes, Matthias was Joe's father's name, so he was Joseph, son of Matthias, that is to say, Joseph Bar Matthias. Eisenman makes this remark only in a note and says that "some" make this contention, but he avoids saying who, so he doesn't comit himself, but one feels that this is his opinion.

But the analogy between Jesus, son of Ananias and the gospel Jesus is very striking. The author of "The Two Jesuses" says that what is really behing this maybe the fact that Mark is recalling and oral tradition about the same character. By the way, this explains why the Roman governor is a "procurator": Jesus, son of Ananias was brought before Albinus who was in fact a procurator, Pilate's precise title was prefect.

spin · 09-05-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DE BERGERAC

The fact is that the existence of a place called Arimathea is not an established fact for NT times.

Ramoth. (Aramaic has the propensity of putting a frontal alep on words. I was chasing up the use of "drachma" drkmwn in the HB and found it also fronted with an alep )drkmwn.)

spin

Toto · 09-05-2005, 12:34 PM

Wikipedia about Ramoth

Quote:

Ramoth-gilead - heights of Gilead, a city of refuge on the east of the Jordan river; called "Ramoth in Gilead" (Deuteronomy 4:43; Joshua 20:8; 21:38). Here Ahab, who joined Jehoshaphat in an effort to confront the king of the Arameans, was mortally wounded (1 Kings 22:1-36). A similar attempt was afterwards made by Ahaziah and Joram, when the latter was wounded (2 Kings 8:28). In this city Jehu, the son of Jehoshaphat, was anointed by one of the sons of the prophets (9:1, 4).

Biblical tourism

Quote:

Ramoth-gilead was designated as one of the cities of refuge, where one who had killed another unintentionally could await trial, protected from avenging relatives (Deut 4:43; Josh 20:8). The city was also given to the Levites (Josh 21:38; 1 Chr 6:80).

. . .

As the struggle for Ramoth-gilead continued, the prophet Elisha sent one of the sons of the prophets to the city to anoint an army captain, Jehu, king over Israel. He also instructed Jehu to kill the injured King Joram and all the members of his father Ahab’s house to avenge the deaths that Ahab had inflicted on the Lord’s servants. After helping the Israelites take the city, Jehu zealously obeyed the Lord’s instructions, killing Joram, his mother Jezebel, and all who were associated with Ahab. He then went on to eradicate Baal worship from Israel (2 Kgs 9-10:28).

I'm not clear what this implies. A city of refuge, meaning Jesus taking refuge from his pursuers? Or a reference to the final battle which will restore YHWH worship to Israel?

DE BERGERAC · 09-05-2005, 09:31 PM

This text is written by TOTO in some other place: [mod note - Toto was quoting Paul Tobin]

This leads us naturally to the next question: was Joseph of Arimathea an historical person? We can immediately see the difficulty involved here, when we note that even the town of Arimathea is a fictitious town! As the scholar E. Goldin Hyman pointed out, there is no record in the Old Testament, Torah, Talmud or anywhere else except in the gospels of a place called Arimathea. [5] Attempts to identify the place with Ramathaim (I Maccabees 11:34) and Ramathaim-Zophim (I Samuel 1:1) is based on pure conjecture. [6] How certain can we be of the existence of a person who came from a non-existent town. . .

If he did not exist, the next question would be where Mark got his story (and the name) from. There is a very likely candidate for this. As the Jewish scholar, Hugh Schonfield [8], pointed out, the story of Joseph of Arimathea in the gospels resembles very closely an episode from Josephus' Autobiography.. . .

The similarity in the names of the main protagonist is also considerable. In the same work, Josephus elucidated his distinguished ancestry. His grandfather, also named Joseph, begot Matthias his father in the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus (AD6). In the Greek text (the language Josephus wrote in) Joseph begot Matthias is rendered as Josepou Matthias. In Mark's gospel, Joseph of Arimathea is written in Greek as Joseph apo Arimathias, the similarity is curious. To quote Schonfield:

It is certainly curious that we have Josephus, himself a Josepou Matthias, begging the Roman commander for the bodies of three crucified friends, one of whom is brought back to life. [11]
. . .

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

09-04-2005, 03:40 AM	#45
DE BERGERAC Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tarraconensis (Hispania) Posts: 13	Take: 1) The story about Jesus son of Ananias (Woe to Jerusalem!) in War. 2) The story about Carabas in Philo. 3) The story about three crucified in Josephus' Life. And you have the basic inspirational framework for the message, Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. Whoever wrote the gospels was aware of these texts. Even Josephus (according to "some", says Robert Eisenman) is present in disguise since he is Joseph of Arimathea. In fact, he was (Life) Joseph bar Matthias. So, Mark's construction takes up these materials and more to bulid his narrative. Hence, he is later than Josephus.

09-04-2005, 06:39 PM	#46
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	DE BERGERAC: "Take: 1) The story about Jesus son of Ananias (Woe to Jerusalem!) in War. 2) The story about Carabas in Philo. 3) The story about three crucified in Josephus' Life. And you have the basic inspirational framework for the message, Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. Whoever wrote the gospels was aware of these texts. Even Josephus (according to "some", says Robert Eisenman) is present in disguise since he is Joseph of Arimathea. In fact, he was (Life) Joseph bar Matthias. So, Mark's construction takes up these materials and more to bulid his narrative. Hence, he is later than Josephus." I like that. Particularly #2....complete with robes, title, "Matthew's" ID in some mss of C[B]arabbass as "Jesus", crown, anti Herod as "King of the Jews"...have I got them all right? Dunno about Joe as J b M, was'nt that his dad's name as well? Seems a bit far-fetched but I've read worse. But I'll add this [tentatively] to my growing list of reasons as to why I date "Mark" much later than the orthodox position. Big presuumption follows: "Mark" is pretty ignorant of details re Judaism [sabbath, hand washing, synagogues, rabbis], Palestinian geography [it's a long way to Tyre and back by the circle route]...etc.. So what was his source of information? What did he know and who/how did he know it? Any specifics?

09-05-2005, 12:12 PM	#47
DE BERGERAC Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tarraconensis (Hispania) Posts: 13	The fact is that the existence of a place called Arimathea is not an established fact for NT times. Yes, Matthias was Joe's father's name, so he was Joseph, son of Matthias, that is to say, Joseph Bar Matthias. Eisenman makes this remark only in a note and says that "some" make this contention, but he avoids saying who, so he doesn't comit himself, but one feels that this is his opinion. But the analogy between Jesus, son of Ananias and the gospel Jesus is very striking. The author of "The Two Jesuses" says that what is really behing this maybe the fact that Mark is recalling and oral tradition about the same character. By the way, this explains why the Roman governor is a "procurator": Jesus, son of Ananias was brought before Albinus who was in fact a procurator, Pilate's precise title was prefect.

09-05-2005, 09:31 PM	#50
DE BERGERAC Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tarraconensis (Hispania) Posts: 13	This text is written by TOTO in some other place: [mod note - Toto was quoting Paul Tobin] This leads us naturally to the next question: was Joseph of Arimathea an historical person? We can immediately see the difficulty involved here, when we note that even the town of Arimathea is a fictitious town! As the scholar E. Goldin Hyman pointed out, there is no record in the Old Testament, Torah, Talmud or anywhere else except in the gospels of a place called Arimathea. [5] Attempts to identify the place with Ramathaim (I Maccabees 11:34) and Ramathaim-Zophim (I Samuel 1:1) is based on pure conjecture. [6] How certain can we be of the existence of a person who came from a non-existent town. . . If he did not exist, the next question would be where Mark got his story (and the name) from. There is a very likely candidate for this. As the Jewish scholar, Hugh Schonfield [8], pointed out, the story of Joseph of Arimathea in the gospels resembles very closely an episode from Josephus' Autobiography.. . . The similarity in the names of the main protagonist is also considerable. In the same work, Josephus elucidated his distinguished ancestry. His grandfather, also named Joseph, begot Matthias his father in the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus (AD6). In the Greek text (the language Josephus wrote in) Joseph begot Matthias is rendered as Josepou Matthias. In Mark's gospel, Joseph of Arimathea is written in Greek as Joseph apo Arimathias, the similarity is curious. To quote Schonfield: It is certainly curious that we have Josephus, himself a Josepou Matthias, begging the Roman commander for the bodies of three crucified friends, one of whom is brought back to life. [11] . . .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.