S.C.Carlson

Unusual birth but probably not heavenly, since the connotations of ectroma are negative.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

I like to think that Paul narrows down what exactly was unusual about his call in verse 9; while the other apostles had already seen the risen Lord and were engaging in mission and ministry, Paul was at that time still persecuting the church. Then in verse 10 he admits that he had to work harder than those other apostles just to catch up, as it were.

Ben.

Toto

Will Durant used the "untimely born" reference to argue that Paul referred to a human Jesus that Paul was born too late to have known personally, and a few Christian apologists repeated this argument here. However, the "untimely" part of ektrwma refers to being born too early, as a miscarriage.

The previous thread on this: Will Durant and Jesus' Historicity.

There are also comments from Andrew Criddle (p. 17) in The post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus

spin

If one is dealing with the one source tradition, then the "all" indicates nothing. The Kurdish freedom fighter will certainly be looked at by his peers as a martyr, yet the majority of Turks will see him as a terrorist. It's a matter of packaging. We've had historical figures manipulated so frequently, we should always be wary of reciting the hype. Consider Nero systematically misrepresented or Richard III or Niccolo Macchiavelli. We are supposed not to be influenced by the biases of the journalist wherever possible.

Consensus only shows popularity. This is not a criterion for giving a thesis priority. Being popular doesn't make a view more correct. It is the responsibility for those holding a substantive view to justify it. Proposing an alternate hypothesis only gives the consensus something to aim at which clouds the problems with its own position. Showing the holes in the consensus should be sufficient.

When Robert Donceel showed the evidence regarding Qumran archaeology unconsidered for nearly forty years, he was compelled by the same logic you are touting to propose an alternate hypothesis: Qumran was perhaps a villa, for it certainly showed signs of not being a religious settlement. This simply stimulated proponents of the religious settlement theory to shoot at the villa theory and ignore the evidence. Qumran manufactured glass and was a pottery producer. It was not a simple establishment, but part of the Hasmonean Dead Sea development of the same time as numerous other sites.

Proposing an alternative just allows the consensus to avoid its responsibilities.

A text like Mark was not the work of one person, but the fruit of a developing tradition. Where did a writer in Rome (consider for example why you'd need to tell a Judean that the woman was a Syro-Phoenician when the distinction with a Libo-Phoenician would have been meaningless) get all the information from?

The image we have from the Didache is that there were itinerant preachers who survived by cadging off christian groups. A similar image can be found in Lucian's picture of Peregrinus. People went around, in order to make a living, telling their own versions of the good news from which communities built up their own christologies.

I think, by the time we get the production of Mark, there were already a number of sources which include different writing styles. A simple division in the text is the passion narrative versus the miracles/teachings. The former is a much longer single narrative with additives, while the latter is just a string of short units tied together and capped with the little apocalypse ending with the admonishing to be awake/alert. The passion also features a device well-known from oral traditions, the rule of three, in which threes predominate the narrative, three disciples in Gethsemane, three prayers and three returns, three denials, three crucifixions and many more.

Perhaps the short pieces in the first section were already collected by the time the passion was used to close the text. Whatever the case the passion was heavily worked upon. The signs are there however for a long gestation period for the gospel.

When did accommodating mother Judaism reject christianity? Or was it when did christianity reject mother Judaism? Whichever question, the timing of the separation of the ways might help us understand better the relationship with Paul. As it is, we have just a few cracks in the wall behind which is the development of christianity for us to peer through and try to make those brief glimpses seem coherent.

We don't get the "quotidian life of an earthly and human Messiah". We get the miracle worker and to a lesser extent hellenistic teacher with acolytes. There is nothing quotidian about it. There is much of the wisdom of god (and the platonic logos) in that teacher.

I don't know whether there was a stage when people actively believed in "some sort of intermediary plane", but I would have to supply a relationship between gnostic christianity and that which developed into orthodox christianity. How does Docetic christianity fit in, which sees a Jesus who was merely an image of a human and the crucifixion merely an illusion?

The process of "hereticalizing" groups within an evolving tradition is an interesting one as the self-image develops imperceptibly by hacking off bits that the majority doesn't like. One doesn't notice the changes in such a process, so your need for perception of differences before the need for hacking seems to me to be irrelevant. We have signs of such division from the earliest records, so it is consistent to think that they existed before there were records.


spin

Vorkosigan

wiccan, the trial as it is depicted in the Gospels could not have happened. There's an extensive discussion on my commentary.

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMar...tml#14.p.53.65

God Fearing Atheist

Could be be more specific in your citation of Brown (1994) Vork? I don't recall him claiming any of the points you listed were "serious historical problems," and at least one (point 4, "blasphemy consists solely of speaking the name of YHWH") is explicitly repudiated (pg. 520-523).

spin

Just a small clarification: it was actually Pauline Donceel-Voute who enunciated the villa hypothesis because of her husband's research.


spin

Vorkosigan

Thanks, I'll have to rewrite this, then.

Michael

yalla

I would be interested in knowing on what grounds Brown repudiates "blasphemy consists solely of speaking the name of YHWH".


Please.

andrewcriddle

Brown's central claim is that the Greek used for blasphemy (BLASPhHMEIN and related words) cannot be simply identified with the Hebrew words normally translated as to blaspheme or curse the Lord (NQB GDP etc)

BLASPhHMEIN and related words in Josephus Philo and the Septuagint have, according to Brown, a substantially wider reference.


Brown suggests that in the Gospel narratives the accusation of blasphemy against Jesus is more or less equivalent to 'insulting the God of Israel'

See Death of the Messiah pps 521-523

Andrew Criddle