Vinnie

Anyone read it here? I saw it advertised on some infidels site before I purchased it so I figured I'd ask.I just started it. I think he abused the "messianic secret" in chapter one and made a few "gratuitous" arguments but there was, of course, a bit of accurate material in that first chapter as well.

Vinine

Toto

I read it a while back. It is fairly difficult to think of the gospels as history after reading it. What do you mean by "abused the messianic secret"?

Vinnie

He made the Messianic Secret the "central theological idea pervading the entire Gospel." His interpretation and application of the MS should have been accompanied by more argumentation and less assumption. See the second half of the first chapter for info on the MS in Mark.

Yet we can still see the Gospels as containing history.

Vinnie

Secular Pinoy

I haven't read Helms' book. In Paula Fredriksen's book Jesus of Nazareth, she points out that the Messianic Secret is found only in the Gospel of Mark (pages 137 to 154).

Vinnie

Helm's book will probably end up being a notch below Fredriksen's work. Fredriksen isn't talking about the "messianic secret" in those pages. Its a discussion of Christ in the Gospels. Fredriksen's discussion of Messiah in Mark should probably make one wonder about some of the ways Helm's spinned the MS.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I am wondering how 1 Cor 7:1 turned into the blatantly misogynist "it is a good thing for a man to have nothing to do with a woman" ?????? p. 76.

Where did helm's get that interpretation from? These are the types of things I was talking about after I read the first chapter and said Helm's makes a a lot of "gratuitous arguments". He does not justify his interpretations of these texts at all. He is using his own special interpretations gratuitously without any qualification. The book appears to be second rate material.

Further, in his "argument" that a woman authored Luke he does not attempt to engage in any counter-arguments (maybe he does in the next chapter but I doubt it based upon a skimming of it) which would seeminngly undermine his case for Luke being written by a female. For example, I'd love to see Helms tangle with Crossan's comments in Jesus A Revolutionary Biography pp. 173-74.

I would not recommend the first 80 pages of this second-rate scholarship to anyone. There is some accurate material inside but for those not familiar with NT research they will probably be misled by all of Helm's gratutitous assertions. For those knowledgeable in NT studies, well, you won't learn much in here. Not in the first 80 pages at least. Helm's provides a perfect example of the difference between asssertion and argument

I find that sad as the back of the book claims it to be "exhaustively researched" or for an even more comical praise: "His investigation into the four-canonical Gospels is thorough, painstaking and well-documented." Well documented? The book doesn't even have footnotes!

Also, Helms said Matthean priority is a naive fundamentalist view that "all responsible scholar" have abandoned (p.41). But see E.P. Sander's and Margaret Davies in SSG who said the view has been revived and footnoted Farmer's work. I know nothing about Farmer and I reject the GH but is Farmer and all others who hold to GH non-responsible-fundamentalist scholars? Raymond Brown's Intro to the NT says the GH still has respectable advocates today (Butler, Deardorf, Wenham) p 113.

In light of that let's further quote the back of the book: "Helms does not wish to engage in religious polemic...". he might not wish to have done so but it certainly slipped in in various spots.

Vinnie

Toto

Helm's documentation is in the references in his text.

He is doing straight literary criticism, and he nowhere states that seeing the gospels as literature is incompatible with some historical content, so in that sense he is avoiding polemic. You may find the arguments "gratuitous", but they are based on the words in front of you, and you are free to disagree.

I'll have to go back to the book later to make a more specific response. I don't recall what he says about 1 Cor 7:1, but are you arguing that there is no misogyny in Paul's letters? Or that celibacy is not a manifestation of misogyny?


NIV:
KJV:

Vinnie

Yes but they are sparse.

My point is that the words in front of me are being "gratutitously" interpreted and I see specious arguments. Anyone of course, is free to agree with them.

No I did not argue that.

All celibacy is a manifestation of misogyny??? I would certainly disagree with that. I mean, what if a woman was celibate? Is that misogyny?? Do you mean "some celibacy"? If you do then you would naturally have to explain how "some celibacy" applies to Paul's proclamation of celibacy". maybe his urgent eschatology had something to do with it? Maybe it didn't?

Your quote of the kjv does not translate into Helm's creation: "it is a good thing for a man to have nothing to do with a woman".

That is very misleading out of context. Put 7:1 into context:

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Hell, that almost sounds egaltarian to me

On page 76 Helms says that "Misogny was the essence of apocalyptic Christianity in Luke's time and even a generation before, when Paul declared that "It is a good thing for a man to have nothing to do with a woman".

That is entirely misleading as viewing and interpreting the passage in context tells us otherwise.

Vinnie

Secular Pinoy

She was talking about the Messianic Secret in those pages. In page 28, Fredriksen noted that:While in the part of her book I referred to above, pp. 137-154, she expanded this theme wherein Jesus was reluctant about proclaiming his identity in the Gospel of Mark, but not in the other gospels. In fact, as you noted, she was talking about the use of the word Christ in the gospels. In Mark, where there is an acknowledged MS, Christ was almost never used as a designation of Jesus by the gospel writer. At least, that's how I understand Fredriksen in this regard.

If I'm mistken about this, I apologize. I'm new to this discussion.


Note: Secular Pinoy's Post # 666! Yay! (Added at SP's request)

Vinnie

Luke 4:41: “Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.”

Matthew 16:13-20 has the same event but adds to it: “When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Luke 9:18-21 as well: “Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say I am?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

Peter answered, "The Christ of God." Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone.”

As we see, reluctance appears outside of Gmark as well.

The word Christ appears nine times in GMark:

Mark 1:1
The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[

Mark 8:29
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ. "

Mark 9:41
I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

Mark 12:35
While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, "How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ[ 12:35 Or Messiah] is the son of David?

Mark 13:21
At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ[ 13:21 Or Messiah] !' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect–if that were possible.

Mark 14:61
But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[ 14:61 Or Messiah] the Son of the Blessed One?"

Mark 15:32
Let this Christ,[ 15:32 Or Messiah] this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Notice how Christ is used only in the opening line and nowhere else before chater 8. With that in mind see Raymond Brown's general analysis of the Marcan message (Intro NT, p 126)

Vinnie