Geoff Hudson

[ ] = Read out (proposed editor's changes)
{ } = Read in (proposed original)


Chapter 1
(1)The beginning of the [gospel] {appearance} [about] {of} the [Jesus Christ,] the [Son] {Spirit} of God.

(2)It is written in Isaiah the prophet:

["I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"]

(3)-- "a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.' "

(4)And so John came [, baptising] in the desert region

[and preaching]

{PROCLAIMING} [a baptism] {THE SPIRIT} of [repentance] {purification} for the [remission] {removal} of [sins] {impurities}.

(5)The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to [him] {hear the Spirit}, confessing their [sins] {impurities.}

[, they were baptised by him in the river Jordan.]

(6)John wore…
[clothing made of camel’s]
…{long} hair,
with a [leather] {linen} [belt] {garment} round his
[waist] {body},
and he ate [locust’s and wild honey] {no flesh}.


Notes:
v.(2) “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” is not from Isaiah, but from Mal 3:1, which has been used by the editor to make John appear as a messenger sent in advance of Jesus.
v.(3)The voice calling in the desert was the Spirit of God speaking through John.
v.(5)The people went out to the desert to hear "the voice" of the Spirit.
v.(4)The editor makes John into a baptist, practicing a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, but the prophecy in verse 3 makes no reference to such.
v.(6)The editor is making John appear more ascetic than he really was. He almost certainly, like the disciple James, belonged to the strictest sect of the Jews, the Rechabites (Jer.35:12-19 and Acts 26:5). Imagine wearing a camel haired coat in the desert! It was not a long haired coat that John was wearing, but long hair, the visible reminder that he had made Nazirite type vows not to drink wine, in obedience of Rechabite commands. Why does the editor have John wear a leather belt round his waist? I mean, where else would one wear a belt? The special thing about John’s clothing was that he wore linen, a material made from flax as worn by priests, and considered to be pure because it didn’t come from animals. The material was symbolic of John’s priestly role and his right of access to the temple as a Rechabite (not a priest) to serve God (Jer.35:19) day and night (Acts 26:7). To be healthy, John would have eaten a greater variety of food than locusts and wild honey, and the original text no doubt told us what he did not eat rather than what he ate. He was vegetarian, and probably ate fruit and nuts as those priests of Life 3.

Paul Baxter

what's your particular reason for editing out the term euangelion? There are quite a number of internal and external reasons for it's inclusion.

Geoff Hudson

I consider the word gospel meaning message to be in a later layer. Generally, the gospel as a message (information) is preached. In the earlier layer, the general rule (particularly I think in Hebrews) seems to be that the Spirit, as the manifestation of the person of God, is proclaimed.

In some instances, the word gospel can simply be replaced by Spirit: Phil.1:5 - "because of your fellowship in the [gospel] {Spirit}"

The phrase "gospel of God" would be "Spirit of God" in the earlier layer: Rom.15:16 - "with the priestly duty of proclaiming the [gospel] {Spirit} of God (interestingly, "so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, [sanctified] {purified} by the [Holy] Spirit".)

Geoff

Paul Baxter

The way I've been reading it [gospel] (based on quite a number of contemporary scholars)is as a political term. This was the term used when announcing victories in Rome. Thus I see it as thematic for the book as a whole. Most markan scholars point out the "immediacy" theme as indicative of showing Jesus in a kingly role, thus making the whole book politically subversive.

Are you unaware of/unfamiliar with/ or just rejecting this usage?

Taamalus

John combines Malachi, Isaiah and Exodus 23:20
Not really. The voice and John are identical. John is the voice calling.
Again my Bible, the New American version writes no such thing. The emphasis is towards John the Baptist.
The baptism was to straighten the path to Christ. Jews did not get baptized. There were three religious factions in Israel. Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees. The Essenes got baptized.
The Rechabites may have existed during Nehemiah, not sure if they had a role during 30 AD. They usually dressed in black and preferred a nomadic way of life.

Geoff Hudson

For Rechabites, Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus is quite good.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

You may well be correct. I would still contend that it was incorporated in a later layer. My main concern is about the primary religious movement, not the political reasons that the powerful had for subsequently changing a pure form of religion in which there had been a quantum leap in thinking.

Geoff

Paul Baxter

Geoff,

of course this isn't the sort of thing which can be settled in a few sentences back and forth between us. It's about the interpretation, to some extent, of the whole NT. But I've become increasingly convinced that the political subversion theme is fairly pervasive, both in the gosple writers and in the epistles. This is fairly well established in current scholarship in works like _Paul and Empire_ ed. Richard Horsley, _Matthew and Empire_ by Warren Carter (which I'm reading right now), and the N T Wright essay "Paul's Gospel and Caesar's Empire" available here http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htm. It seems like it would take an awful lot of excision and revision, not too mention an additional theory of how, when, and why the authors/editors changed the books (and why the originals haven't turned up). Certainly, if we accept the Pauline writings as earliest, one would need, I suppose, to start there.

Geoff Hudson

Paul,

I am not too sure what you mean by political subversion. If there was such, one question would be who was subverting whom? Another would be why? I do think that the primary religion penetrated the top of the Roman establishment very early in its history. I would also say that the rapid exapansion of the primary religion was the exile of many of its initial proponents from Jerusalem to Rome. For example, I see all of Acts 1 to 12 set in Italy. Now that takes some swallowing, but is a clue as to how much I think Acts has been garbled by these later "subverters". Robert Eisenman (sorry about the name dropping, but he actually used to live about five miles from me where he met his wife) told me recently (in effect) during a phone conversation, that he thought we were dealing with state sponsored propagandists, and I think he also said state secret police. They no doubt included many high in the later church.

What started as a bright new religious philosophy of the Spirit, once popular, was very rapidly seized upon by the establishment, and then adapted, as a means of controlling the masses. Like the Jewish high priests, the establisment couldn't stand the idea of individuals being led by the Spirit of God - hence the religion had to change, in effect to a gospel message (a statement of belief) that became a creed for all to follow.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

N.T. Wright in his essay, referring to the book "Paul and Empire":

The book thus invites us to approach what has been called Paul's theology, and to find in it, not simply a few social or political "implications", to be left safely to the final chapters of a lengthy theological tome, but a major challenge to precisely that imperial cult and ideology which was part of the air Paul and his converts breathed. His missionary work, it appears (I am here summing up in my own way what I take to be the book's central thrust), must be conceived not simply in terms of a traveling evangelist offering people a new religious experience, but of an ambassador for a king-in-waiting, establishing cells of people loyal to this new king, and ordering their lives according to his story, his symbols, and his praxis, and their minds according to his truth. This could only be construed as deeply counter-imperial, as subversive to the whole edifice of the Roman Empire; and there is in fact plenty of evidence that Paul intended it to be so construed, and that when he ended up in prison as a result of his work he took it as a sign that he had been doing his job properly.
******

In contradiction, I think that "Paul's" early missionary work took place in Italy with the blessing of many in the imperial household such as the emperor Nero himself, Agrippina and Seneca. Possibly what wrecked everything was the strong reaction of Jewish traditonalists both in Rome and in Palestine - a reaction that developed into civil war and then into a war with the Romans - somewhat like the events unfolding in Iraq.

I don't see why the gospels in their "original form" should have post dated "Paul's" epistles.

Geoff