Posts by euripides

19

If you could meet (and talk to) any Bible scholar, who would it be?

by euripides in

i'd like to get a sense of the scholars any of you out there appreciate most and who's hot right now (in the academic fields!)...

i always liked burton mack myself.

well, who would you love to meet?

euripides

I'd like to get a sense of the scholars any of you out there appreciate most and who's hot right now (in the academic fields!)... I always liked Burton Mack myself. Well, who would you love to meet?

11

Mark 14:62

by peacefulpete in

did mark intend his jesus to openly declare that he was the messiah?

through out the text we find mark hinting about the identity and even having his hero forbid others to declare their conviction that he was the messiah.

yet in mark 14:62 most bibles have jesus openly declaring himself to the high priest be the coming one, saying ?i am?.

euripides

OK now I need to know more about L.! I get carried away and obsessed by scholarship just as much as the next academic! And mercifully, I look nothing like Jabba the Hutt.

9

The Book of Enoch

by VM44 in

the book of enoch has been mentioned here before.

i have some questions i would like to post here, and would very much like to read what people here have to say in answer to them.. .

3) did the book of enoch influence the writings of the new testement?.

Aland's 4th Revised ed. of the NT contains an index of allusions and verbal parallels as one of its appendices. Here is their list for the book of Enoch:
Enoch 1:2 = 1 Pet 1:12
1:9 = Jd 14-15
9:4 = Rev 15:3; 17:14; 19:16
14:22 = Rev 5:11
25:5 = Rev 15:3
27:3 = Rev 15:3
46:3 = Col. 2:3
51:2 = Luke 21:28
60:8 = Jd 14
63:10 = Luke 16:9
69:27 = Jn 5:22
70:1-4 = Heb 11:5
In the same appendix many other apocryphal/pseudepigraphical works are cited with their corresponding parallel. If there is anything to be learned from this, it is that these texts were available to the Jewish communities in the first and second century and that they were not regarded with the same purist contempt that latter day Christendom (and WT) has attributed to them. Of course, even Jerome didn't like them, and Luther thought even some canonicals (like the epistle of James) had problems! So the process of canonicity is a selection process, but really communities ratify authority, not designated leaders. Because of that process, the WT is what controls Witnesses, not the text of the scriptures themselves. That is a prime example of community ratification of a noncanonical source!

11

Mark 14:62

by peacefulpete in

did mark intend his jesus to openly declare that he was the messiah?

through out the text we find mark hinting about the identity and even having his hero forbid others to declare their conviction that he was the messiah.

yet in mark 14:62 most bibles have jesus openly declaring himself to the high priest be the coming one, saying ?i am?.

euripides

Hi pete, yes Leolaia and I are on the same page in a lot of this materialEveryone keeps referring to L. as female, (as if it matters, right?) and if L. is, why haven't people like me been breaking down her door for a date? I, on the other hand, often get, "if only you were a chick...."

I can recommend Burton Mack's recent work, The Jesus Myth, which takes the issue of the quest for the historical Jesus and says, that is not a provable issue, and so let's analyze the cultural and religious history and it becomes evident that the elaborate mythology of the Jesus figure becomes necessary to the continued reinvention or application of the core central myth of dying and resurrected godman. More and more this is where much of the aggressive scholarship is heading, even as much as we have the benefit of decades of strong scholarship to dissect important issues.

BTW, I really enjoy hanging out with you all and chiming in now and again. It's gratifying to find so many dedicated and talented WTBTS survivors who haven't lost all interest in the academic side of these things.

11

Mark 14:62

by peacefulpete in

did mark intend his jesus to openly declare that he was the messiah?

through out the text we find mark hinting about the identity and even having his hero forbid others to declare their conviction that he was the messiah.

yet in mark 14:62 most bibles have jesus openly declaring himself to the high priest be the coming one, saying ?i am?.

euripides

One of the interesting issues surrounding why Jesus' identity is such a secret in Mark ("the master of mystery") is that presumably it helps a later generation understand why Jesus was not so readily recognized. The disciples in Mark are consistently portrayed as absolutely baffled. But, in keeping with Mark 10:45 and 4 Maccabees, the Markan audience understood the concept of Vicarious Expiatory Sacrifice, and were willing to associate Jesus with that concept, if not Messiah figure. Mark's shroud of mystery servies to heighten the tension within the text behind what Jesus was and what the world of the immedaite aftermath of destruction of Jerusalem could make of the man from 40 years earlier who really was not much of a phenom at the time but his legacy had since exploded throughout small churches (=people) in and out of Judea. So when we look at the exchange in 14:62, we do well to ask ourselves, who would have heard this exchange in the first place (so it is fabricated) and even if Jesus was more clear to non-Jews typically, and in this case the author has Jesus citing the prophets and writings before the council, Jesus own disciples were almost completely without a clue.

251

Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?

by booker-t in

i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.

i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.

fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.

euripides

Sabrina wrote, "it is well known here that you [Leolaia] do not support the inspiration of the Bible." Sabrina, just think about how that sounds. It makes it sound like "the inspiration of the Bible" is a foregone reality that Leolaia denies. Substitute "inspiration of the Bible" for anything you like, such as "the truth," "theocratic order," "my way of thinking," etc and you hear how it comes across. What I want to know is, if you're not interested in scholarship Sabrina, why can't you accept that scholarship can upbuild some people and strengthen their faith? Scholarship isn't meant to endanger or tear down faith. That's anti-intellectual paranoia a la Watchtower wherein they realize that by someone else pointing out obvious rational things the masses just might realize the glaring holes in WT's theology. Scholarship is a free intellectual inquiry which seeks to rely not on theological subjectivity but the social, historical, and literary placement of these texts in their respective contexts (as if that mattered!). I say again, What is Wrong With That? What is There to be Afraid of?

5

walking on sea or on shore

by peacefulpete in

some have suggested that ?walking upon the sea?

story of mark 6:45-51 was based upon an older resurrection appearance story that mark misinterpreted.

the similarity to luke 24:36-7 (surprised disciples seeing what they took to be a spirit) suggests that mark misunderstood his source?s use of the expression (epi)?on?

euripides

Two points: first, the unusual aspect of the Mark narrative of his version of the walking on water story, to me at least, is the comment that "he intended to pass them by." This serves to show that they needed to call to him to get his intention, but it is puzzling all the same. Second, I dont believe that our current form of Mark is truncated and a lot of the hype made about it being so is misplaced. There is thematic unity ending at 16:8, but I realize that is an entirely different discussion. I had never heard the theory of the epi being misunderstood in its application to the water versus the shore, but it is an interesting idea. Obviously Matthew draws from Mark's version and embellishes, and while Peter is hardly mentioned in the earlier narrative the later narrative shows him to be the center of the story's moral of belief/faith. Yet at the end of the Mark narrative, they don't seem to understand what happened, and even afterward Jesus reminds them and they still are confused.

251

Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?

by booker-t in

i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.

i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.

fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.

euripides

Narkissos, you wrote, "I was thinking of modern readers and speaking somewhat figuratively. As to the early reception of the text, it is a much more complex issue if you take into account the general literacy rate as well as the scarcity and cost of complete manuscripts. Most scripture undoubtedly circulated under the form of testimonia, anthologies, i.e. excerpts of several works linked together for apologetic or parenetic purposes." Ah. Most scholars believe that these texts were disseminated to the churches in their written or copied format, but then were read aloud to the churches (congregations). The same may well have been true of 1 Enoch. So when I say "readers," I suppose I really mean, mainly, listeners. General literacy rates for the Roman empire at the period, based on statistical likelihood thorugh social class, are in the 10% neighborhood. And yes, that leads to the interesting topic of whether Jesus the Nazarene was literate, magic trick in reading from Isaiah in Luke notwithstanding. Perhaps I will start that one next!

251

Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?

by booker-t in

i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.

i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.

fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.

euripides

As Leolaia very well said, when Jude quotes Enoch he begs his readers to read Enoch. That does not make Enoch canonical, authoritative, inspired or "authentic". It just means it is worth reading -- were it for the only reason of understanding Jude.

Rather he (or she)--the author of Jude--understands that they (the readers/churches) already have read Enoch and are familiar with it (and accept its authority). It is being cited authoritatively. One thing I think which has not been brought up is that it does not seem as if the NT texts which refers to Michael, ie Revelation 12, and Jude 9, seem to presume that their readers understand this archangel to be Jesus. If they did, then it would have been a novel doctrine which presumably would have required further elucidation. Michael they knew, Jesus they now know, but how can they understand, i.e., from their perspective, that Jesus and Michael are the same?

251

Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?

by booker-t in

i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.

i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.

fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.

euripides

May I begin by saying that I respect and appreciate all those posting on this board, and by no means wish to insult or offend anyone. It is a blessing that we have an open forum where we can discuss at great length topics such as this from so many different angles--I appreciate all of your (pl) input, and am interested in how the discussion proceeds.

Happy Guy, you said,"By the same token and without being facetious I find your logic ridiculous. To suggest that Jesus did not really mean what he was saying that there was no meaning or depth to it but rather he was mindlessly attempting to regurgitate scripture without any actually meaning behind it is really reaching."
I am not suggesting this at all. "Recalling," "echoing," or even "quoting" do not constitute mindless regurgitation in my view.
"The bible says that Jesus said this just before he died. It is a significant statement as it indicates Jesus' fear. Why would you want to deny that this happened?"
Two gospels do report that this is what he said near the moment he died. Both gospel writers also report that this led to a confusion that Jesus was thought to have been calling Elijah. That it was an impassioned thing to say at that moment I don't doubt--knowledgeable bystanders could even have concluded that his plight was similar to that of David's in hiding, wherein each man felt himself forsaken and alone. Fear might well be a natural outgrowth of that emotion. But The Text Does Not Say Jesus Was Afraid. So then, why is it not an interpolation to say that Jesus must have been afraid, especially since you wisely warn against positing "that [the text] says things that it actually does not say"?
And as I have already pointed out, I am not arguing that Jesus and Michael are the same entity, persona, or character, fleshly or otherwise. I think a sophisticated understanding of the Scriptures explores with critical methods that don't add to the Scriptures, nor takes away. Of all people I can assure you I am committed to keeping within the text! Leolaia's input has been extremely valuable as it shows that other texts, which almost certainly were source material and widely disseminated at the time, can enhance understanding of the scant occurrences there are for mention of Michael. As best I can tell, those references seem to point to the fact that Jesus and Michael were not imagined by the Bible writers (or Jesus, if you wish to take that liberty) to be one and the same. Nowhere does Jesus say, I am Michael. No writer says, Michael and Jesus are the same. If to say so becomes (or did become) a necessity theologically, which hearkens back to my question to Sabrina, then so be it. I think the *reason* for the disagreement might help us to understand the issue better.
As always, offered with the utmost respect.