Post Reply
Page 5 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12 Next
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 10:04AM #41
chuckj
Posts: 443
[QUOTE=MisterC;183587][QUOTE=chuckj;182332]

I'm not a Paul Fredriksen fan. I have read her "Jesus of Nazareth" and have it downstairs in my library, but I disagreed with most of it. (I even disagree with her title being the historical rendering of the "title" for Jesus. I think the root  NZR, which could have been several words, including Nazareth, Nazorean, or Nazarite, hearkened back to Samson. In that tale, we have another woman unable to give birth an angel visited, who gave birth to Samson the Nazarite, "the first to deliver Israel from the Philistines." (Judges 13) In delivering Israel from the bad guys he realized that he would have to die... He had "no eyes" but could see. (Samson was also quite the party animal.)

[/QUOTE]

Dennis,

I believe the phrase Jesus of Nazareth comes from this verse in Mk 1, along with other mentions of Nazareth:

"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan."

As hard as Mt and Lk work in their birth fables to get Jesus from Bethlehem to Nazareth, along with GJn's apologetic scene that includes "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" it seems to me that Jesus' Nazarethness would be pretty dark Red (assuming one believes there was a Jesus).  (And for that matter, if Jesus were fictional, who invented such a problematic hometown?  Why not make it Bethlehem and have it done with?)

Mt's prooftexting is just that.  He started with J's hometown and searched, lamely, for a tanakh prediction to match it.

Seems to me.

Chuck
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 10:19AM #42
GeneStecher
Posts: 556
Dennis wrote to Chuck:  "Please explain the tenor of Romans 9-11, suggesting that the day of Judaism had passed......"

Here is my 8-Tier contribution in TWO POSTS.  I do not think that Paul sees the day of Judaism as having "passed," and that's one reason why he is early and chronologically first:

The THEMATIC development of negative/conflictual attitudes toward “the Jews” appears to be generally consistent with a conclusion that the Pauline literature came first.  Here are eight suggested tiers of development.

A. FIRST TIER: THE GENTILES IN PAUL.   Paul is most likely not anti-Judean (religious prejudice) and not anti-semitic (racial prejudice), but anti-those Jews, or anyone else, who, contrary to his own Jesus-experience, insisted on either circumcising and/or eating separately from gentile Jesus-followers.

(1) "....let that one be accursed." (Galatians 1:8-9)
"I opposed Cephas to his face, because he stood self-condemned." (Galatians 2:11)
"Whoever it is... will pay the penalty." (Galatians 5:10)
"I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves." (Galatians 5:12)

(2) A line of reasoning suggested by ChuckJ posting in the Jesus Seminar egroup (March 5, 2007, 5:53PM), post #1 of the thread: How Paul Killed the Jesus Movement.  Taken from a much lengthier context:

"So here's what I'm thinking: Paul unintentionally killed the Jewish Jesus movement through his theological innovation of allowing Gentiles into the movement without their becoming Jews. Palestinian Jesus followers were not socially ready for this innovation and rejected it, which eventually ended all Jewish participation in the Jesus movement….Jesus didn't come back, and didn't come back, and still didn't come back, leaving this issue unresolved…..Paul was a hero that rode a social current for a while, but was the victim of a cultural backlash.”

B. SECOND TIER: THE REMNANT.   This concept from the OT carried into the early Christian community, "Then the Son of Man will send out his angels and gather his elect from the four winds..." (Mark 13:26), "...a hardening has come upon PART of Israel until the full number of Gentiles has come in." (Romans 11:5, 25; cf. 9:27)

[1] Paul continues to be hopeful and he makes the excuse of ignorance for his fellow Israelites, "My heart's desire is that they may be saved....being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God....they have not submitted to God's righteousness." (Romans 10:1-3; 11:1)

[2] Paul has a positive theory about God's plan for "His people":

(a) "....has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite...Have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles...Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, now much more will their full inclusion mean." (Romans 11:1,11-12)

(b) "And so ALL Israel will be saved...For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all...How insearchable are his judgments and how inscrutible his ways...To Him be the glory forever." (Romans 11:26,32,33b,36)

C. THIRD TIER: EARLY POST-70 CE: MEMORY AND COMPETITION. The gospel writers, initially Mark, look back and see events from the memory of tradition, but also at least partly through the lens of the competition for converts between rabbinical Judaism and the Jesus-Followers after the 70 C.E. temple destruction:

(1) Vermes shows us that even the Talmud criticized the Pharisees: "A further consideration will help the understanding of the Pharisee polemic of the Synoptics...the rabbis could also be tough critics of their forerunners.  The text lists seven types of Pharisee of whom six fail to meet with approval.  The terminology is sarcastic.  There is the Sleeve Pharisee who displays the good deeds on his sleeve (literally shoulder), followed by the Hang-on Pharisee who say, 'Hang on so that I can perform another good deed.'  We encounter the Book-keeping Pharisee who, having committed a sin and done a good deed, sets one against the other in the debit and credit columns of his spiritual accounts.  The Parsimonious Pharisee says, 'What can I set aside to do a good deed?'  The Show me my sin and I will do something Pharisee says, 'Show me what you claim to be my sin and I will quickly perform a good deed to cancel it.'  Finally, we see the Pharisee of fear who is like Job, and the Pharisee of love who resembles Abraham.  Of them all, concludes the Talmud, only the Pharisee like Abraham found favour with God (ySotah 20c; bSotah 22b). (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, 72)

Mark 2:6-7. "Now some of the scribes were sitting there questioning....It is blasphemy!"
Mark 3:6. "The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.”
Mark 3:22. "And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem, said, "He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons."
Mark 6:1,3. "He came to his hometown....'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary....And they took offense at him."
Mark 7:6.  "(Jesus) said to them (Pharisees, scribes), 'Isaiah spoke rightly about you hypocrits, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me....'
Mark 7:8.  (Jesus said) "You (Pharisees, scribes) abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition." (cf. 7:6-13)
Mark 8:15. "And he cautioned them..."Watch out--beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod."
Mark 8:31.  "...the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed....."
Mark 9:14.  "...they saw a great crowd around (the disciples) and some scribes arguing with them...."
Mark 10:33.  "...the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles;"
Mark 11:17.  "....'you (buyers and sellers in the Temple) have made it (Temple) a den of robbers.'  And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him;"
Mark 12:9,12.  "...the owner...will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others...When they (chief priests, scribes, elders) realized he (Jesus) had told this parable against them, they wanted to arrest him..."
Mark 12:13. "Then they (chief priests, scribes, elders) sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said."
Mark 12:38-40.  "Beware of the scribes...They devour widows' houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers."
Mark 13:9.  "(Jesus said)...they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues;"
Mark 14:1. "The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him;"
Mark 14:10. "Then Judas Iscariot...went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them...they were greatly pleased and promised to give him money."
Mark 14:63.  "Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, 'Why do we still need witnesses?  You have heard his blasphemy!"
Mark 14:9-11.  "(Pilate said), 'Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?"  For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over.  But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead."
Mark 14:21. "...woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!  It would have been better for that one not to have been born."
Mark 15:11.  "....the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him (Pilate) release Barabbas for them instead."
Mark 15:13. "They (the crowd) shouted back, 'Crucify him!'"
Mark 15:31. "...the chief priests, along with the scribes, were also mocking him among themselves and saying, 'He saved others; he cannot save himself.  Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now..."

Gene
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 10:22AM #43
GeneStecher
Posts: 556
Second Post: Attempting to show a thematic development from Paul to the present which suggests that Paul's thinking puts him early and chronologically first.

---------------------

D. FOURTH TIER: LUKE/ACTS:  HARSH BUT EXCUSING.  In some sectors of the community there are harsh words, but the Jewish community continues to be excused for its role in the death of Jesus which is viewed as part of God's overall plan.

Luke 24:44-46.  "These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you--that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, must be fulfilled...Thus it is written that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day...."
Acts 2:22-23 Peter (a Palestinian Jew) said, "you that are Israelites... crucified and killed this man [according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God][by the hands of those outside the law.]"
Acts 3:12,14,17 Peter (a Palestinian Jew) said, "You Israelites....rejected the Holy and Righteous One...and you killed the Author of Life...[I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.]"
Acts 7:52 Stephen (a Hellenist) said to the High Priest and council, "...your ancestors killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers." [no excuse given]
Acts 13:26-28. Paul (a diasporan Jew) said to "my brothers...descendents of Abraham's family...others who fear God...[Because the residents of Jerusalem and their leaders did not recognize him or understand the words of the prophets]...they fulfilled those words by condemning him. Even though they found no cause for a sentence of death, they asked Pilate to have him killed."

E. FIFTH TIER.  ASCERBIC PERCEPTION CONTINUES AND HARDENS in some Jesus-Follower sectors.

(a) We have seen that Paul longs for the salvation of the people of Israel, and although he becomes very angry over their deaf ear to his spirit/faith/freedom/fruit message, he sees their actions as part of God's overall plan and does not objectify and condemn them as a group who killed Jesus; and so the following passage (or the whole letter) has been classified by many as a later.

1 Thessalonians 2:14a “You brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, 14b for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, 15a who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; 15b they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. 15c Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last.”

(b) The Gospels.  Statements targeting specific Jewish groups become more ascerbic, and at the time and place of John, there is additionally the possibility of an objectifying generic labeling, "the Jews." (however, also cf. 2 Corinthians 11:24 for a much earlier reference to “the Jews.”)  Even so, there is also evidence (John 13:33) that John's references to "the Jews" actually refers to the specific groups, such as the chief priests and Pharisees, and that he is contrasting the disciples with them.  It is unlikely that he/she would be referring to the The Twelve as if they were not Jews.

Matthew 23:2,13. "Jesus said...'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat: therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach'....But woe to you scribes and Pharisees....."   Compare that introduction with the whole section 23:4-36 which contains a total of nine elaborated condemnations interspersed with phrasing like, "You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to Hell?" (23:33) [cf. Lk 11:37-53]
Matthew 27:24-25.  "....he (Pilate) took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.'  Then the people as a whole answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children.'"
Matthew 27:62-64. "....the chief priests and the pharisees gathered before Pilate...'command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, 'He has been raised...'"

Luke 4:28-29. "When they (people of Nazareth) heard this (God's selectivity in choosing to whom prophets will be sent), all in the synagogue were filled with rage.  They got up, drove him out of town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff."
Luke 7:9.  "(Jesus) said, 'Not even in Israel have I found such faith (of the centurion).'"
Luke 23:22. "A third time he (Pilate) said to them....'I have found in him no ground for the sentence of death...but they (chief priests, leaders, people) kept urgently demanding with loud shouts that he should be crucified, and their voices prevailed.'"
Luke 22:28. "(Jesus) said, 'Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and your children, for the days are surely coming when.....'"

John 1:11.  "He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him."
John 5:18. "...the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, therefore making himself equal to God."
John 6:41,52.  "Then the Jews began to complain about him because he (Jesus) said, 'I am the bread that came down from heaven'....'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'"
John 7:1.  "....he (Jesus) did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him."
John 7:15. "The Jews were astonished at it saying, 'How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught.'"
John 7:32. "...and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple police to arrest him."
John 8:48.  "The Jews answered him, 'Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon.'"
John 10:31.  "The Jews took up stones again to stone him."
John 11:45.  "Many of the Jews....believed in him.  But some went to the Pharisees...the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council....Caiaphas who was high priest that year said to them...'....it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed'....from that day on they planned to put him to death.  Jesus therefore no longer walked about openly among the Jews."
John 13:33. "Little children (the twelve), I am with you only a little longer.  You will look for me; and as I said to the Jews, so now I say to you...."
John 18:3.  "So Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees..."
John 18:20. "Jesus answered....'I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together."
John 19:1-16.  Five times Pilate attempts to dissuade ("I find no case against him.") those ("the Jews" 18:38, 19:7,12,15; "the chief priests and the police" 19:6)  intent on the death of Jesus.  "We have no king but the emperor." (19:15c)
John 19:31. "...the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath..."
John 19:38. "....Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body."

Tyson’s  “Marcion and Luke-Acts” (need reference) contains this concluding paragraph:

"The work of the author of Acts and canonical Luke should be appreciated as a major literary and theological achievement. We must also stress the role that these texts played in the history of second-century Christianity, especially in the defeat of Marcionite Christianity and in the development of the New Testament canon. In its own time and in its legacy Luke-Acts participated in a defining struggle. It drew Christian believers to reflect on the close relationship of their faith to the Hebrew Scriptures and to see their lives in Christ as the fulfillment of long-held Jewish expectation and ancient prophecy. But in regard to Christian-Jewish relations the proto-orthodox victory, in which Luke-Acts played such an important part, was a two-edged sword. On the one side it secured the retention of the Hebrew Scriptures for Christian use. On the other it opened the way to a Christian interpretive strategy that supported virulent and frequently disastrous forms of anti-Judaism. “

F. SIXTH TIER: US-AGAINST-THEM attitude begins to develop at a more rapid pace.  2nd to 3rd Century Church Fathers.

The 'tribulations were justly imposed upon you, for you have murdered the Just One' (Justin c.100-165, Dialogue, ch.16; FCCH, St. Justin Martyr, p.172, as cited ibid., p.40.).

Turtullian calls the Jews "the seed-plot of all the calumny against us" (Nat. 1.14.1, CCSL 1.32-33)[1] and calls the synagogues "fountains of persecution" (Scorp. 10.10, CCSL 2.1089).

G. SEVENTH TIER: 4TH TO 5TH CENTURY CE: VIRULANT HATRED is projected on to God’s eternal attitude toward the Jews as a group.

St. John Chrysostom (345?-407 CE): “God always hated the Jews.  It is obligatory for all Christians to hate Jews.”
St. Ambrose (340?-397CE): “I hereby declare that I set fire to the synagogues.”
St. Augustine (354-430CE): “The true image of the Jews is Judas, who sells the Lord for silver.  The Jew will forever bear the guilt for the death of Jesus.”
St. Jerome (340?-420CE): “Jews are congenital liars.”

H. EIGHTH TIER: CONSUMMATE EVIL.  More recently representative of the 7th Tier we have Hitler: “The teachings of Christ have laid the foundations for the battle against Jews as the enemy of Mankind; the work that Christ began, I shall finish.”

Gene
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 12:01PM #44
MisterC
Posts: 1,865
I'll have to go with van Manen, Doughty and Detering on that, Gene. (Noting that it is the minority position.) The author seems to be explaining the first Jewish Roman war's effect on Israel. How is it so easy for folks to look at the Markan imagery and say that it was written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, yet look at the author of Romans quote Isaiah about only a remnant being saved and say, "And as Isaiah predicted...." "What then are we to say? .... Israel, who did strive for righteousness that is based on law, did not succeed in fulfilling... They have stumbled over the stumbling stone" and on and on, not realizing that this too was a product of someone writing after the war? Why are "Paulines" uncontestable by so many? As van Manen says, chapters 9-11 contain as its theme "the rejection of the Jews."  In it we find that the author's religion is not the Israelite religion and that they have paid for their nonacceptance of his gospel. Already. By 60. Yet, we are not accustomed to this happening until later, in conventional wisdom. It's part of that crazy Pauline world that doesn't belong then. I like what Doughty said about Romans: "But critical scholarship has been unable to determine why this writing was produced in the first place or what it represents." Hopefully, you do understand we are looking at several pieces of a writing that originally did not even fit together. (For instance 1-8 are separated by differences in language (as well as content) from 9-11, whereas the third part 12:1-15:3 seem to be connected, but this connection is "mechanical" (van Manen). The conclusion? Don't most people think that was added?

Somewhat related, in an abstract way: I think the most humorous thing I read last year in an egroup (a different one) was, when someone insisted that Acts was written before Paul died said that Mark must've been written in the time between the crucifixion and the resurrection, because there had been no sighting of Jesus. As I said, in an abstract way, this is the same, because, as Doughty stated, the paradigm that  takes for granted that the Paulines were written when it was said needs to be changed. There is a missing sitz em leben, as he also stated.

Dennis
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 12:07PM #45
MisterC
Posts: 1,865
[QUOTE=chuckj;183781][QUOTE=MisterC;183587]

Dennis,

I believe the phrase Jesus of Nazareth comes from this verse in Mk 1, along with other mentions of Nazareth:

"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan."

As hard as Mt and Lk work in their birth fables to get Jesus from Bethlehem to Nazareth, along with GJn's apologetic scene that includes "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" it seems to me that Jesus' Nazarethness would be pretty dark Red (assuming one believes there was a Jesus).  (And for that matter, if Jesus were fictional, who invented such a problematic hometown?  Why not make it Bethlehem and have it done with?)

Mt's prooftexting is just that.  He started with J's hometown and searched, lamely, for a tanakh prediction to match it.

Seems to me.

Chuck[/QUOTE]


Is there anything other than the Christian writings that place "Nazareth" on the map then, with that name? We note that at least one of the second century writings, Gospel of Philip, I believe, explains "Jesus the Nazarene" differently than being a town. Wouldn't Jesus have been Yeshua bar Joseph or something, if he needed a title? How about Jesus the Galilean?  Why a town, which probably wasn't a town with that name, just a few houses by archeological estimates and mayb a hundred or so inhabitants? Do you discount the gospeleers'  use of the Hebrew scriptures and themes when they wrote?  I know. I know. Nazareth makes such a sweet-sounding, pastoral name for such a wonderful factual story, a real history.... Sheesh! Where's the adventure? Can't you vary one iota or jot from the "party line?" (Rhetorical question)
Dennis
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 12:36PM #46
chuckj
Posts: 443
Bob,

As happens from time to time, Dennis has crossed a madness and meaness threshold that I find intolerable.  I'll be happy to respond to questions you have and input from other members, but I'll be taking a Dennis break.  (I've done it before; they never last long.)
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 3:03PM #47
MisterC
Posts: 1,865
[QUOTE=chuckj;184267]Bob,

As happens from time to time, Dennis has crossed a madness and meaness threshold that I find intolerable.  I'll be happy to respond to questions you have and input from other members, but I'll be taking a Dennis break.  (I've done it before; they never last long.)[/QUOTE]

Note that this is an excellent way to get away from my excellent questions! Hey, I'll list them again ((with numbers!!!)) and add a bit of wisdom at the end:

1. Is there anything other than the Christian writings that place "Nazareth" on the map then, with that name?
2. Wouldn't Jesus have been Yeshua bar Joseph or something, if he needed a title?
3. How about Jesus the Galilean?
4. Why a town, which probably wasn't a town with that name, just a few houses by archeological estimates and mayb a hundred or so inhabitants?
5.  Do you discount the gospeleers' use of the Hebrew scriptures and themes when they wrote?
6. and 6 1/2. Where's the adventure? Can't you vary one iota or jot from the "party line?"

Now, let's see... Greek and Hebrew are not really the same with this They don't jibe. “N-Z-R” root. “Nazareth,” has a “N-TZ-R” root, whereas “Nazarite” is “N-Z-R.” TZ translates to Z or S in Greek. We see the term in Greek used as either Nazorean or Nazarene nineteen times (though it is translated as of Nazareth in all but two times) and a different spelling “Nazareth” six times and “Nazaret” four times. (“Nazaret” is used in your Mark quote.)  So, the Hebrew word would not have been Nazareth at all.

The “great Epiphanius, in the fourth century, is probably the one who settled for the word meaning a town. He is the one who said that Jesus had been conceived in the womb IN the town of Nazareth, as opposed to the Lukan phrase in 2:22-23, taken from Exodus... "Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord."  N-Z-R means roughly to "set aside," as in staying Holy to God by taking various vows. This is probably the imagery, since Luke was using the Hebrew scriptures (Greek version) to commemorate Jesus' birth as "Holy," set aside.
(Incidentally, N-TZ-R has a different connotation, that of "observing," as in observing the commandments of God.)
(Thanks to R. Eisenman for the Hebrew "lesson.")
Dennis
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 5:16PM #48
RJMcElwain
Posts: 2,953
[QUOTE=chuckj;184267]Bob,

As happens from time to time, Dennis has crossed a madness and meaness threshold that I find intolerable.  I'll be happy to respond to questions you have and input from other members, but I'll be taking a Dennis break.  (I've done it before; they never last long.)[/QUOTE]

Chuck,

Well said, and understood.

And might I suggest that we all reread the Rules Of Conduct for posting on the Beliefnet Boards?  They aren't that onerous or complicated. In fact they're very appropriate and can be summed up as  [COLOR="DarkRed"]"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".[/COLOR]

Sound familiar?:)


[COLOR="DarkRed"]FYI, the Rules Of Conduct can be found at:  [/COLOR]      http://www.beliefnet.com/about/rules.asp
Robert J. McElwain

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson

"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral."
St. Thomas Aquinas

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 6:29PM #49
MisterC
Posts: 1,865
[QUOTE=Walther;185251]Hi Dennis --

Although I'm generally aware of some of the textual variants and additional questions that swirl around Josephus's apparent account of Jesus's execution, I was not aware of similar question marks over the account of James's execution.  Please, are there specific lingustic/stylistic incongruities in the account of the James execution that arguably parallel, in a way, some of the troubling patterns around the Jesus-execution account?  Could you walk us through some of the reasoning that seems to point to the James account being also a later addition?

Many thanks,

Walther[/QUOTE]

I was specifically referring to the JS vote Gene S mentioned (it must be on the other page - I can't find it to copy on this one - where the JS voted that the notion of Jews killing Christians in the first century was anachronistic, probably referring to Stephen in the Acts fiction. I was calling to attention that if this was anachronistic, to be consistent one would certainly have to place the snippet about James (being the brother of Jesus) in that same slot, a Christian insertion. Remember, there are only a couple of words (a phrase)  that even link this James with Jesus. Seems there were many "Jacobs" or "James's" hanging around in the first century.

That is, if one goes with the vote.
Dennis
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 03, 2008 - 7:11PM #50
MisterC
Posts: 1,865
The name “Nazareth” is not found outside the Christian Testament before late third, fourth century, and that on an inscription, From another source, I get this:

“Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament, nor do any ancient historians or geographers mention it before the beginning of the fourth century. The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth. Josephus, who wrote extensively about Galilee (a region roughly the size of Rhode Island) and conducted military operations back and forth across the tiny territory in the last half of the first century, mentions Nazareth not even once -- although he does mention by name 45 other cities and villages of Galilee. This is even more telling when one discovers that Josephus does mention Japha, a village which is just over a mile from present-day Nazareth! Josephus tells us that he was occupied there for some time. Today, Japha can be considered a suburb of Nazareth, but in Josephus' day, I'll wager, the people of Japha buried their dead in the tombs of the unnamed necropolis that now underlies the modern city called Nazareth.” http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html

Crossan reports a small settlement there, from archaeological finds. There is, however, no name attached at that time.

What might that have to do with "second century NT?" Well, for one it shows that there is a large possibility that there was no Nazareth in the first century. Why is this important? It shows a. a gross misunderstanding of the term "Nazirite" by obviously Gentile copyists. Would such a lack of an actual "hometown" of Jesus have gone uncontested, had it been a tradition in the first century in Galilee/Judea? It shows a misunderstanding of Mark. Why would he write, "What have you to do with use, Jesus of Narareth?" (Mark 1) Why attach that name? What is the significance of the hometown in a Capernaum synagogue? Nothing whatsoever.  If, however, one reads this another way, another ORIGINAL meaning is found: "What have you to do with us,k Jesus the Nazirite? Have you come to destroy you. I know who you are, the Holy One of God." The Nazirites WERE the "holy ones of God, set apart from ordinary folk.

I get rather ascerbic from time to time, but lawsy, folks, if you just will let go for a second and see possibilities other than the status quo, these things might excite you as they do me!

Dennis
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook