according to mark 8:11-13 jesus was grieved even indignant at the request for some "sign".
had he not done many before and would he not do miraculous signs yet?
i propose (not original to me) that some early form of mark (urmark) or q contained no miracles.
PP: Not scared at all!
You sure do well to bring the Christos / Chrestos amphibology into the picture: it is clear that the semitic sense of "anointed" was meaningless for pagan Christianity (pleonasm) and that Christos was mostly taken in the sense of Chrestos (mild / good) -- the letter to Philemon is explicit about that --, resulting in a diaphanous Christ picture which was altogether alien to the Jewish Messiah...
according to mark 8:11-13 jesus was grieved even indignant at the request for some "sign".
had he not done many before and would he not do miraculous signs yet?
i propose (not original to me) that some early form of mark (urmark) or q contained no miracles.
From Paul's supposed authentic letters (not Acts of course!) it is pretty obvious to me that Paul was quite uneasy about the "charismatic" dimension of some Hellenistic churches (especially Corinth). In fact he has very little in common with them, and tries to rule, organize, discipline, actually manipulate or even hijack their faith in order to bring it under his own flag (I mean "his Gospel"). So certainly he would'nt give more credit to miracles by ascribing them to Jesus (but he doesn't deny that either).
About Jesus himself, the "JB hypothesis" (I mean John the Baptist!), for what it is worth, would somewhat favor the idea of his miracles as a later addition from Hellenistic charismatic tradition (along with the antinomian features). It is noteworthy that the miracles in Mark culminate with the Fig-tree story and the subsequent teaching of faith (chapter 11), which include the formula about "moving the mountains" which is also present in 1 Corinthians 13:2 (not as Jesus or Paul's word, but as a charismatic slogan). This can be a "signature" on the whole tradition.
according to mark 8:11-13 jesus was grieved even indignant at the request for some "sign".
had he not done many before and would he not do miraculous signs yet?
i propose (not original to me) that some early form of mark (urmark) or q contained no miracles.
Very interesting. Actually the plausible historical material in the Gospels is just enough for one character, not two. I was thinking of John's insisting denegations in GJohn (He was not the light, I am not the Christ), as characteristic of the rivalry between separated schools of disciples which ultimately come from the same source. Reading the thread I was wondering how the name "Jesus" could be explained in this perspective, but later I read Price and saw he makes a good case of it as a glorification title based on Philippians 2. One could bring Matthew 1:21ff into the picture, where "Jesus" is a meaningful title just as "Immanuel".
I especially like Price's tongue-in-cheek conclusion: nobody can be sure it is true, but it is just as plausible as any theory...
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.
Miscellaneous bibliographical news from my Parisian library.
I was essentially doing some research on the "Beelzebul" pericope (Mk 3:22-30) which interestingly has a Q parallel (Lk 11:14f,17-26; 12:10//Mt 12:25-29; H.T. Fleddermann in Jesus, Mark and Q -- The Teaching of Jesus and its earlier records, Sheffield University Press 2001, studies it on his hypothesis that Mark knew Q, something I've been thinking for years). I hoped to find the ICC commentary Leolaia mentioned (who is the author?), but unfortunately it is not (yet) there. Instead I found the Anchor Bible J. Marcus commentary, which is probably more limited -- still interesting, and undoubtedly better than the previous C.S. Mann's.
So I had little time left to document our discussion. The only specific article I found about Paul and the Gospel tradition is H.W. Hollander's "The Words of Jesus: from Oral Tradition to Written Record in Paul and Q", in Novum Testamentum 2000 (42), p. 340-357. It is far less specific than what we discussed thus far, concentrating on the explicit "Lord's teaching" (including 1 Corinthians 11:23ff but excluding 1 Th 4:15) and concluding that it emerges from the liturgical and disciplinarian needs of the early churches, not necessarily with Jesus himself (he seems to doubt Jesus was ever a teacher). I also found (but of course not read) a recent general volume of the Anchor collection which may be of interest, D.L. Dungan's A History of the Synoptic Problem. On Secret Mark I just had a glance at a recent book of Marvin Meyer (sorry I didn't note the reference) who is also quite positive about it (I'm becoming less and less skeptical...).
Not so much help I'm afraid...
according to mark 8:11-13 jesus was grieved even indignant at the request for some "sign".
had he not done many before and would he not do miraculous signs yet?
i propose (not original to me) that some early form of mark (urmark) or q contained no miracles.
In Mark miracles are not "signs" (semeia, as in John), but lit. "powers" or "powerful acts" (dunameis, 6:5 etc., compare to the use of the singular e.g. in 5:30, "power had gone forth from him"). So the implication of Mk 8:11f is not that Jesus doesn't do miracles at all, but that he won't operate an ultimate, public, accreditation miracle (notice the use of "signs and wonders" in 13:22 about pseudo-christs and pseudo-prophets). Interestingly most of Mark's miracles are surrounded with secret ("don't tell anybody"). Anyhow, I doubt the hypothesis of a miracle-free proto-Mark (what would be left as the narrative frame for Matthew and Luke?)...
iraqi govt.
papers: saddam bribed chirac .
baghdad, iraq, jan. 28 (upi) -- documents from saddam hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top french officials into opposing the imminent u.s.-led invasion of iraq.. the oil ministry papers, described by the independent baghdad newspaper al-mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new iraqi governing council, the independent reported wednesday.. "i think the list is true," naseer chaderji, a governing council member, said.
Gerard,
I found the articles by the link you gave earlier in this thread. Unfortunately they don't appear anymore (this is a daily page), and I could not find them in the archives either.
What I remember is that they didn't mention Chirac, but Pasqua (inter alia), and that the date of the documents was 1998 (so hardly related with recent developments). I haven't read anything else about it. When I find something on a French source I'll let you know.
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.
Leolaia:
I found your reconstruction of the textual history of Mt 10 // Mk 13 // Lk 21 // Jn 14 quite compelling.
On the relationship of the Pauline letters with the "sayings of the Lord", I will try (perhaps not succeed) to address your objections (following your list):
1) IMO the difference (formal correspondence not referred to the Lord vs. non-formal correspondence referred to the Lord) points to a different kind of tradition transmission (pleonastic, sorry) as far as Paul is concerned. That is, when Paul explicitly refers to "the Lord" he never writes anything similar to the Gospels, even though analogous ideas may be present in another form in the Gospels as we know them. This may mean that the knowledge of "Jesus' teaching" Paul has through the Hellenistic churches is quite independent from the knowledge he has of literary material which was later presented as "Jesus' teaching".
2) The argument that Paul mentions the Lord only when and because he paraphrases sounds weak to me. If authority is at stake, the challenge would be far better matched (especially in a mostly oral context) by quoting formally ? if such a thing could be done. If Paul does not quote the Lord formally (from the standpoint of Gospel tradition), it is because he cannot do it ? or because the Lord?s sayings he refers to are known in a different form in the community he addresses.
3) The author of EpJames would also have made a better point in his own context had he quoted Jesus, if the material he uses was known to him as Jesus? words (my provisional conclusion: he knew the material, but not as Jesus? words).
4) About Rm 13:7 I must correct my hastily classification: actually there is a tenuous but important verbal link to Mt 22:21//, the characteristic use of apodidômi (taxes are something to be given back, which is not a very common and natural thought as far as I can guess).
5) I really wonder if 1 Th 4:15 can be seen as parallel to the ?first and last? sayings in Mt 19:28ff or Lk 14:20 at all. This seems slightly farfetched IMHO. If it is not, this refers to a "saying of the Lord" which is altogether absent from the Gospel tradition. (But this can also mean extatic revelation.)
6) The fact is that the Gospel-like formula in 1 Co 10:27 is not mentioned in the context of mission such as in Luke 10:8. The possibility exists that this is in fact a Pauline expression which Luke brought into a new context (no parallel in Matthew), and that the parallel in (final) GThomas (also in the context of mission) is subsequent to that.
7) There is no doubt that the paraenetic sections of the Pauline letters lean heavily on non-pauline material, especially church tradition. However, the difference between formal analogies not referred to the Lord and non-formal analogies referred to the Lord may indicate that in his sources most of the Gospel material was not yet ascribed to Jesus...
I'll see if I can find something on that (and on the Kingdom of God issue) in my library tomorrow...
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.
Hi Gumby! I?m sorry I misunderstood your post, but I'm relieved now. I thought you were somehow upset about this thread and worried why, since I had noticed you were interested in similar subjects a few months ago. Anyway, I agree that our interests may change a lot with time: at the moment I really enjoy the discussion although my part in it is mostly questioning (which is much easier!); Leolaia?s amazing familiarity with ancient Jewish and Christian literature and Peacefulpete?s challenging "Pagan" insight are really opening my too ?internal? Bible perspective. As you said, I guess it can be useful to anyone comes to this place of interest sooner or later. I personally wish I could have read such things much earlier.
Take care,
Narkissos
iraqi govt.
papers: saddam bribed chirac .
baghdad, iraq, jan. 28 (upi) -- documents from saddam hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top french officials into opposing the imminent u.s.-led invasion of iraq.. the oil ministry papers, described by the independent baghdad newspaper al-mada, are apparently authentic and will become the basis of an official investigation by the new iraqi governing council, the independent reported wednesday.. "i think the list is true," naseer chaderji, a governing council member, said.
The Nazis were able to successfully topple France because the German soldiers marched into the country backwards and told the French they were leaving.
The Americans must have believed that too, since they remained neutral until Pearl Harbour...
"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.
Agreed with Morey on the plural of majesty.
But the NIV footnote, as quoted by herk, gives a different (and contradictory) explanation:
God speaks as the Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also 1Ki 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).
Interestingly, this concept of the "heavenly court" is directly derived from the Canaanite "assembly of the gods", presided by the supreme god El, which is depicted in several Ugarit (Ras Shamra) texts (a concept very similar to the Greek Olympus).
Trying to edit as quickly as Hooberus: the phrase "in the image of God" (1:27b; 5:1) can be translated "in the image of the gods" just as well. My guess is that we have a monotheist redaction struggling with older polytheistic tradition (implying men, also in the plural in 1:27d, after the image of gods).
See also, for a similar redactional wrestling, the distorted parallelism in Proverbs 9:10 (fear of Yhwh // knowledge of the Holy ones, cf. 30:3, nor I have knowledge of the Holy ones).
