Posts by Narkissos

102

The Trinity in the Old Testament

by hooberus in

"and god said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

" genesis 1:26 .

note the plural "our image", "our likeness" yet from other verses it is clear that man was created in gods image and likeness (singular).. "so god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him; male and female created he them.

Narkissos

Do you have early manuscripts of Genesis that are polytheistic and later ones that are monotheistic?

Not of Genesis, but when you get to Deuteronomy 32:8ff you'll find something very similar to that: an original polytheistic text as the only explanation for the divergent LXX and MT...

While you are in Genesis, I'm sure you'll point to the texts where elohim (god[s]) is construed with a plural... (3:5; 20:13; 35:7). In fact the "trinitarian evidence" may soon become just too overwhelming...

I don't know which explanation is the most "respectful" of the texts, but the listing is interesting from my standpoint too...

102

The Trinity in the Old Testament

by hooberus in

"and god said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

" genesis 1:26 .

note the plural "our image", "our likeness" yet from other verses it is clear that man was created in gods image and likeness (singular).. "so god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him; male and female created he them.

Narkissos

Or: polytheism in the lower (= older) strata of the O.T. texts / monotheism in the upper strata...

Editing: sorry Bradley, just saw your post now...

77

Resurrection Appearance to James the Just

by Leolaia in

apostle paul provides an early list of jesus' resurrection appearances in 1 corinthians 15. it is important because this list was written before our canonical gospels were written and thus serves as an independent source of information.

paul writes:"christ died for our since, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared first to cephas and secondly to the twelve.

next he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died; then he appeared to james, and then to all the apostles; and last of all he appeared to me too; it was as though i was born when no one expected it.

Narkissos

Leolaia,

I?m sorry for what happened... it?s so frustrating! I noticed, when it happens to me, I have a short span of time in which I can write a common text again pretty easily. But 5 hours, with fresh research and references... it just sucks.

However, I hope you don?t cut down your contribution too drastically, because it is highly appreciated by a wide variety of people and from a number of standpoints.

As for the use of paradidômi in John 19:30, it?s noteworthy that the verb occurs everywhere in GJohn for the ?handing over? of Jesus (by Judas, the Jews, Pilatus... 6:64,71; 12:4; 13:2,11,21; 18:2,5,30,35,36; 19:11,16; 21:20). But it can also recall the use of pneuma as the object of didômi in 3:34, or lambanô in 7:39; 14:17 ? and especially the so-called Johannine Pentecost of 20:22: Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.? So 19:30 IMO may also be understood along the line of Johannine tradition (paradôsis), according to the various stages of Paraclete theology.

About the empty tomb, I?m pretty convinced by your analysis of Luke. My guess is that a revelation story before Jesus? body may also have merged with an ?empty tomb? story implying a real ?spiriting away? of Jesus? body (resulting from an action of the disciples or Joseph, or still someone else, as the slanderous [which way?] tradition in Matthew about the tomb guards suggests); let?s also remember the very strange question appearing both in Mark 15:44ff and John 19:33 whether Jesus was already dead...).

About the Eucharist, I fully agree with one root of this tradition being sapiential. I suspect it may be traced as least as far back as Dame Wisdom?s banquet in Proverbs 9, and this would agree very well with the Q tradition. But every river has a lot of sources...

Thanks again for everything,

Narkissos

77

Resurrection Appearance to James the Just

by Leolaia in

apostle paul provides an early list of jesus' resurrection appearances in 1 corinthians 15. it is important because this list was written before our canonical gospels were written and thus serves as an independent source of information.

paul writes:"christ died for our since, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared first to cephas and secondly to the twelve.

next he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died; then he appeared to james, and then to all the apostles; and last of all he appeared to me too; it was as though i was born when no one expected it.

Narkissos

Awesome post (I?m getting short of superlatives...). The material you brought in about the ?three days? was especially illuminating to me.

I would however raise (!) a linguistical objection about egeirô pertaining to the vocabulary of elevation, or ascension (taking up/being taken up): in the NT this includes hupsoô (Mt 11:23//Lk 10:15; John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32ff [in the Johannine version the very act of crucifixion is interpreted as elevation ?from the earth?]; Acts 5:31), huperupsoô (Philippians 2:9), airô (Luke 23:18; Acts 8:33; cf. the possible overtones in John 1:29; 10:24; 17:15; 19:15,34,38; 20:2,13,15; Acts 21:36; 22:22; Colossians 2:14), epairô (Acts 1:9), analambanô (Acts 1:2,11,22; 10:16; 1 Timothy 3:16; Ps-Mark 16:19; cf. analempsis in Luke 9:51), anapherô (Luke 24:51) and even harpazô (Acts 8:39; 2 Corinthians 12:2,4; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Revelation 12:5). But I doubt egeirô belongs to the same semantic range. When it is not a fair synonym of anistèmi (meaning resurrection as a raising/rising up from the dead), its special nuance is IMO this of awakening (e.g. Mark 4:38f; see the use of the two verbs in 5:41f for instance). So it is very appropriate for a spiritual, not corporal concept of ?resurrection?, but the sense of elevation seems to be absent. It has often been remarked that Pauline theology uses prioritarily egeirô, and the rare occurences of anistèmi consequently have been used as a clue for detecting (earlier or later, in the case of interpolations) non-Pauline material in Paul.

One very important link as regards elevation and the title son of God is, in my view, the Hellenistic Wisdom of Solomon, where both are used to express the divine justification of the persecuted righteous (the literary connections with the Passion narratives are many and obvious). Just a few well-known examples:

2:13ff (words of the wicked about the righteous one):
"He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."

3:1ff: But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be a disaster, and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace. For though in the sight of others they were punished, their hope is full of immortality. Having been disciplined a little (cf. Hebrews!), they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble. They will govern nations and rule over peoples, and the Lord will reign over them forever.

4:10f (on the fate of the childless faithful): There were some who pleased God and were loved by him, and while living among sinners were taken up. They were caught up so that evil might not change their understanding or guile deceive their souls.

5:1ff: Then the righteous will stand with great confidence in the presence of those who have oppressed them and those who make light of their labors. When the unrighteous see them, they will be shaken with dreadful fear, and they will be amazed at the unexpected salvation of the righteous. They will speak to one another in repentance, and in anguish of spirit they will groan, and say, "These are persons whom we once held in derision and made a byword of reproach--fools that we were! We thought that their lives were madness and that their end was without honor. Why have they been numbered among the children of God? And why is their lot among the saints?

The background of the N.T. uses of ?son of God? is very complex and interesting (I hope I am able to post something on this subject in the next few days). But what seems to be new here is that it is combined with post-mortem elevation, in a way which certainly did much to relate the crucified Jesus to the wealth of the "Son of God" motive (including Jewish, Hellenistic and "pagan" material).

11

3 heavens?

by yxl1 in

2 corinthians 12. .

1i must go on boasting.

although there is nothing to be gained, i will go on to visions and revelations from the lord.

Narkissos

The hierarchy of heavens is a typical feature of Jewish and/or Christian "apocalyptic" literature, but the number of heavens varies: 5 in 3 Baruch, 7 in Testament of Levi or 10 in 1 (Ethiopian) Hénoch. The "third heaven" of 2 Corinthians 12:2 is equated with "paradise" in v. 4, which corresponds to 2 (Slavonic) Henoch 8:1.

77

Resurrection Appearance to James the Just

by Leolaia in

apostle paul provides an early list of jesus' resurrection appearances in 1 corinthians 15. it is important because this list was written before our canonical gospels were written and thus serves as an independent source of information.

paul writes:"christ died for our since, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared first to cephas and secondly to the twelve.

next he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died; then he appeared to james, and then to all the apostles; and last of all he appeared to me too; it was as though i was born when no one expected it.

Narkissos

Leolaia: I did read most of Hartin's book while working on James last year (and also some of his less technical A Spirituality of Perfection ? Faith in Action in the Letter of James, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1999). Quite interesting indeed.

Your comment confirms that James' apparition is probably secondary to Paul's. As it is not mentioned even in Acts, where it could have been useful (since James-the-brother-of-Jesus is not a disciple in Luke, and there is no explanation for his prominence in the "Christian" ekklesia in Acts), this is an argument in favor of later interpolation in 1 Corinthians 15. (Elsewhere Paul dismisses the Jerusalem leaders' "natural" connection to Jesus as "fleshly", cf. Galatians 2:6; 2 Corinthians 5:16; 11; and "Christ's party" in 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22 could well be James'.)

My impression is that EpJames' reference to moral law is quite different from James' obvious reference to ritual law. In the Hellenistic vs. Hebrews controversy of the first century (of which we have but a faint and distorted echo in Acts 6--7) the author of EpJames would have been antagonistic to James. But it may indeed fit a secondary reception of Q material as you suggest.

31

Manuscript varients betray deliberate altertion of NT

by peacefulpete in

non-roman fonts used: spionic .

this article is also available in transliteration and text-only formats.

editor's note: bart ehrman delivered the kenneth w. clark lectures at duke divinity school in 1997. this article, though slightly modified from the oral presentation, preserves the original flavor of the lecture.

Narkissos

Leolaia: Thank you so much for this detailed, synthetic, and very impressive answer. It is by far the best concise apology of SMark I have ever read. And thanks Hooberus for providing the link to a fairly complete summary of the opposite viewpoint (contradictions included, such as "it doesn't agree with Clement" and "it shares Clement's gullibility at apocryphal material").

Until now, I had been much impressed by the "overmarkan" character of SMark. As a forgery it sounded quite naive to me. But the structural intricacy with GMark Leolaia pointed to has quite another ring. Can a forgery be that formally candid and structurally sophisticated? Maybe -- and the hypothesis of a very lucky candid 18th-century fake appearing as very consistent under later structural analysis cannot be ruled out. A forgery by Morton Smith himself isn't probable, since his interpretation of the text doesn't match this consistency. However, the weakness of external evidence remains.

Again, thanks very much for enlightening -- if not clearing altogether -- my perplexity...

77

Resurrection Appearance to James the Just

by Leolaia in

apostle paul provides an early list of jesus' resurrection appearances in 1 corinthians 15. it is important because this list was written before our canonical gospels were written and thus serves as an independent source of information.

paul writes:"christ died for our since, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried and that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared first to cephas and secondly to the twelve.

next he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died; then he appeared to james, and then to all the apostles; and last of all he appeared to me too; it was as though i was born when no one expected it.

Narkissos

Fascinating subject, isn't it?

Just a few personal remarks:

1) I hold the Epistle of James to be pseudepigraphical, not necessarily connected with authentic Jamesian tradition (the name of James as a first-generation authoritative opposer of Paul is sufficient to the author). The Jewish identitarian themes that are characteristic of James and his judeo-christian followers are altogether absent from the epistle, the tone of which is hellenistic above all. It may, in fact, spring from the diaspora itself (this would, in turn, question the claim of the Q-tradition shared by EpJames being exclusively Palestinian). A datation in the 80's or 90's could be enough, although it may well be later (in many points the Epistle is quite antagonistic to the Pastorals, so its date may be somewhat related to the latter's).

2) About James the Just, I think the formula "brother(s) of the Lord" cannot be ruled out as a "spiritual denomination" applied to a restricted group of people. Just, in that case, it has to be distinguished from other similar denominations like "the Twelve" or "the Apostles" (already in 1Co 9:5; Gal 1:19: different functions? concurrent groups?). However, the natural explanation of James as Jesus' full biological brother still seems historically plausible to me, as it became a problem very soon in the main Church (see Luke's uneasy treatment of Mark's references to Jesus' brothers and sisters).

3) The fact is James' role is consistently downplayed in the NT. The canonical Gospel tradition separates the brothers of Jesus (whatever the original meaning of the expression) from the disciples. It even creates, IMO, an artificial "other James" (son of Zebedee) in order to reconstruct the trio "Peter-James-John" (compare to Galatians 2:9) which is the closest to Jesus in many stories. In John 7:5, the brothers are described as unbelievers. No post-resurrectional appointing of James is mentioned in Acts, although he later appears from nowhere as the main character in Jerusalem (chapter 15). My guess is, at first no "apparition" was needed to James because he was the natural heir of Jesus' movement (or, better, the main figure of the Nazorean movement to which Jesus was not yet central), which did not yet imply the idea of Jesus' resurrection as disconnected (even if proleptic) from general eschatology. This fits perfectly with the mention of James in GThomas 12: "Wherever you will have come to, you should go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

To be continued...

31

Manuscript varients betray deliberate altertion of NT

by peacefulpete in

non-roman fonts used: spionic .

this article is also available in transliteration and text-only formats.

editor's note: bart ehrman delivered the kenneth w. clark lectures at duke divinity school in 1997. this article, though slightly modified from the oral presentation, preserves the original flavor of the lecture.

Narkissos

Leolaia,

In a previous answer to Peacefulpete about Secret Mark I mentioned my perplexity about it. You seem pretty confident that it is an intermediate stage between the protoMark available to Matthew and Luke and the final, canonical GMark. Is the awkwardness of (canonical) Mark 10:46 the only reason for this decision, or have other arguments been decisive to you?

69

How old were you when you left?

by somebodylovesme in

jw
friends

i only know a handful of witnesses, but i do know several ex-witnesses.

all of them left in their late teens, which (as i've read here) is pretty common.

i know there are a lot of people here who left later in life.

Narkissos

Baptized at 13

Pioneer at 18

Bethel at 22

Disfellowshipped at 27

Out of religion at 37

A very silly life indeed...