Posts by Leolaia

36

Jesus gave no signs

by peacefulpete in

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.

Leolaia

PP: What do you think of Price's theory that the historical Jesus was actually John the Baptist? I am referring to the following paper:

http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/pricejj.html

I find this hypothesis very compelling and explains a great many things (e.g. why Jesus is believed to be Elijah and/or John the Baptist "raised from the dead" in Mark 6:14-16 and 8:28, why the same preaching is attributed to Jesus in Mark 1:15 and John in Matthew 3:2, and other things), plus it would recognize a historical personage at the deepest layer of the tradition. On this view, the beginning of the gospel has Jesus being baptised in water and Holy Spirit (a metaphor for his death and being raised alive in the Spirit, Mark 10:38), and being adopted as the Son of God -- an event that otherwise was believed to have occurred at Jesus' resurrection (Acts 2:32-33; Romans 1:3). This would elegantly explain, then, how later adoptionist christologies shifted the adoption event from the resurrection to the baptism. Identifying Jesus as the returned Elijah would also explain how Jesus was so easily seen as both heaven-sent and returning to Paradise after death (Elijah's former abode); it would also connect Jesus with the apocalyptic Son of Man who judges on the Day of Judgment (1 Enoch) since in Jewish tradition "the resurrection of the dead shall come through Elijah of blessed memory" (M. Sotah 9:15). In Mark, the first thing Jesus does after his baptism is approach Simon and Andrew at the Sea of Galilee and asks them to be fishers of men (in Luke after a great catch of fish), and this story has a direct parallel in John 21:1-19 and Gospel of Peter 14:60 where the fishing scene takes place after the resurrection. At the close of Mark's gospel, Jesus is said to meet his disciples in Galilee but the gospel then abruptly ends; the reader is then invited to turn back to the beginning of the gospel to continue the story. The resurrection appearances that Mark does not relate would then be understood as Jesus' earthly ministry, as he guides his disciples to proclaim that the Kingdom (expected as imminent by John the Baptist) has already come. The single event that would usher in the Kingdom would thus be John/Jesus' death and this would elegantly explain the shift from John's message to Jesus' revolutionary teaching that the Kingdom is already present. This is where the issue of miracles and signs becomes relevant. Josephus and all the gospels agree that John the Baptist was not a miracle worker. The gospels however do present the apostles as miracle workers, and Acts, John, and Paul all refer to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that follows Jesus' death and resurrection. Thus Acts 2:33 says that "he received from the Father the Holy Spirit, who was promised, and what you see and hear is the outpouring of that Spirit." It was traumatic event of the prophet's death that convinced his followers that the eschatological future has come into the present, bringing the promised gifts of the Spirit. The picture of Jesus the miracle worker thus would derive from the belief of the outpouring of the Spirit after Jesus' resurrection, and was manifest in the ministry of some of his disciples -- especially Peter who Acts presents as performing exorcisms and raising the dead like Jesus.

There are also a few weird things about Jesus and John I've noticed that Price did not go into. Luke 3:19-22 refers to Jesus being baptized after John the Baptist was imprisoned (bizarre if John is viewed as Jesus' baptizer but understandable if baptism is viewed as symbolic of John's death and resurrection). Another odd verse is Matthew 21:32 which says that "John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed in him." Here Jesus' ministry to the tax collectors and prostitutes is attributed to John. What we might see here is the view of the early Christian community, in their controversies with the Pharisee orthodoxy, as declaring that the John's gospel was later embraced not by those John directly preached to but the tax collectors and prostitutes who came to "believe in him" (a phrase strikingly similar to "believing in Jesus").

I got into thinking about this yesterday after replying to Narkissos on the matter of the body of oral Jesus sayings and how they have have preceded Jesus and at what point the parables came to refer to the Kingdom of God. The evidence suggested to me that this happened in the oral stage because how the often independent verbal formulations in the Gospel of Thomas refer to Kingdom of God (with some fluidity). Well, yesterday I was reading Josephus discussing John the Baptist and I was particularly struck by the following passage:

"But to some of the Jews, the destruction of Herod's army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives [areten epaskousin], to practice justice toward their fellows, and piety towards God [ta pros allelous dikaiosune, kai pros ton theon eusebeia khromenois], and so doing to join in baptism." (Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2)

The phrase "practice justice toward their fellows" reminded me specifically of the distinctive Jesus sayings on this theme, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan and didactic sayings on "loving your neighbor as yourself" and on forgiveness. This is the core of Jesus' message about the Kingdom and the Beatitudes, and Josephus attributes the gist of it to John. The critical word in this phrase is dikaiosune "practice righteousness" which shows up as a critical theme of John and Jesus in the gospels. In Matthew 21:32, John is said to come "in the way of righteousness [dikaiosune]," a phrase that also recalls the "Way of Life" in the Two Ways teaching in the Didache and Barnabas (which is characteristically Essene). In the Beatitudes, we read: "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness [dikaiosunes], for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven... For I say to you that unless your righteousness [dikaiosune] surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 5:10, 20). Matthew 6:33 also gives the core message: "But seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness [dikaiosunen], and all these things will be added to you." The theme of righteousness towards others is thus tightly connected to the concept of the Kingdom and salvation into the Kingdom. This makes it quite plausible in my mind that the sayings about the Kingdom and practicing justice towards other people, attributed to Jesus, were inherited through John the Baptist who the gospels present as preaching both the Kingdom (Matthew 3:2) and the "way of righteousness" (Matthew 21:32).

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.

Leolaia

Peacefulpete....The reference to the "desolating sacrilege" occurs in Mark and Matthew and derives from Daniel 9:27, 11:31 which refers to the removal of the altar of continual offering and the "setting up" of the "abomination that makes desolate" in the temple. The phrase shiqqusim meshomem (which evokes the idols and "baals" of the wicked kings of old by punning the Baal epithet shamen "heavenly king"; cf. also 1 Kings 11:7) originally referred to the installation of the altar of Zeus Olympius in the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes IV in the year 168 B.C.:

"Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege upon the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding cities of Judah." (1 Maccabees 1:54)

"The king sent an old men from Athens to compel the Jews to abandon their ancestral customs and live no long by the laws of God; and to profane the Temple in Jerusalem and dedicate it to Olympian Zeus, and that on Mount Gerizim to Zeus, patron of strangers, as the inhabitants had requested. The imposition of this evil was oppresive and altogether intolerable." (2 Maccabees 6:1-3)

Although the reference fits nicely with the sacrilege you refer to after the bar-Kochba revolt, there were earlier sacrileges or threats of sacrilege that the phrase could also apply to: (1) King Herod (37-4 B.C.) "made and set up over the great gate of the Temple a sacred and very precious great golden eagle" (Josephus, Antiq. Jud., 1. XVII, c. vi, 2 ), (2) The attempts during the time of Tiberius Caesar and Pontius Pilate (A.D. 26-36) to set up imperial eagle standards (i.e. the bird of Jupiter) which also bore the Caesar's image at the Tower of Antonio overlooking the Temple; according to Josephus, the Temple priests resisted the sacrilege saying, "Kill us, if you will, but take that abomination of desolation out of our Holy City and from the neighborhood of our holy temple" (Ant. Jud., 1. XVIII, c. iii (iv), 1, De bell. Jud., ix (xiv), 2-3), (3) According to Philo (20 BC.-A.D. 42), "Pilate laid up in the Temple by night the imperial emblems, and from that time the Jews were involved in rebellion and mutual troubles" (Philo Jud.; cf. Leg. ad Caium 38), (4) The order by Caligula in A.D. 39 to erect his statue in the Temple in Jerusalem while leading a large army to the city (Ant. Jud., XVIII, 261; Tacitus, Histories 5.9), (5) Following the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, General Titus and his army "brought their [eagle] ensigns to the Temple and set them over against its eastern gate, and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus Emperor" (De Bell. Jud., 6.6.1). The Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 56b also relates a story about Titus defiling the Holy of Holies with a prostitute and slashing the curtain that seperates the Holy of Holies. With the continued threat of sacrileges at the hands of the Romans (who knew that one of the main things that made the Jews different was that "they allow no images (simulacra) in their cities and temples," Tacitus, Histories 5.4), the expectation of a further fulfillment to Daniel 9:27, 11:31 remained pretty constant through the first century. In fact, the threat by Caligula must have made a deep impression because it appears distinctly in Revelation 13:14-15 as the "statue of the Beast [emperor]" that is set up for worship, and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 probably refers to the same thing regarding the Rebel "enthroning himself in God's sanctuary". Although the threat did not materialize because of Caligula's death, Jews believed that his successors would pick up where he left off: "Fear remained that some emperor would command the same thing" (Tacitus, Annals 12.343). Thus when Titus marched to Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and began to take the city, there would have surely been speculation that he would do as threatened by Caligula. The presence of the same theme in Revelation and 2 Thessalonians thus suggests that the events of A.D. 135 need not necessitate the inclusion of the expectation; it was already an expectation of long standing.

Still, when I compare the apocalyptic sections of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I think it is quite possible that the reference to Daniel may be a later development. This is because the parallel text in Luke refers not to Daniel's "desolating abomination" but to "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" (Luke 21:20). As I showed in my Secret Mark and Empty Tomb posts, Matthew and Luke may preserve an older, more original form of the Markan text than canonical Mark. In this case, Matthew agrees with Mark (though differs in the details), while Luke's version actually fits better with the context: fleeing to the mountains while a city is surrounded (cf. the following verse) makes more intuitive sense than fleeing to the mountains when an idol is set up. It may be, then, that the original reference in Mark was to the surrounding of the city by armies -- a clear reference to the siege of A.D. 68-70 -- and canonical Mark and Matthew changed the reference to a still future expectation of the desolating sacrilege (it has also been pointed out that Matthew and Luke do not use the same edition of Mark). Similarly, Luke specifically states that "Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles" in v. 24, which is also missing in the parallel accounts. There is one feature of the apocalypse in particular that makes me suspect later redaction (and preservation of the earlier account by Luke) -- the reference to persecution in synagogues. The version in Luke reads:

"But before all this [terrors and great signs of heaven] they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to synagogues and prisons [sunagogas kai phulakas], and you will be brought before kings and governors [basileis kai hegemonas] for my name's sake. This will be a time for you to bear testimony. Settle it therefore in your minds, not to meditate beforehand how to answer; for I will give you a mouth and a wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict." (Luke 21:12-15)

Now here the followers are said to be "delivered up" to "synagogues and prisons", brought before "kings and governors" (in that order), and most significantly, Jesus is said to give his followers "a mouth and a wisdom" to help defend themselves in their tribunals. The parallel passage in Mark however is worded quite differently:

"But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up; for they will deliver you up to councils [sunedria]; and you will be beaten in synagogues [sunagogas]; and you will stand before governors and kings [hegemonon kai basileon] for my sake, to bear testimony before them. And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour [ekeine te hora], for it is not you who speak but the Holy Spirit [to pneuma to hagion]." (Mark 13:9-11)

In this text, Jesus' followers are said to be delivered to "councils" and beaten in "synagogues", the order between "governors and kings" is reversed, and instead of being given "a mouth and wisdom" to speak in their defense, Jesus says that the "Holy Spirit" would for speaking for them. The first of these changes is interesting because it fits the context better than the Lukan version; Sanhedrins were the places where arrested people were "delivered up" before going to "prison," not synagogues. This has been corrected in the Markan version by referring to synagogues as where Christians would be "beaten". On the basis of this, I have a hypothesis of how the text was altered:

(1) In the original version, no longer extant, the phrase was "deliver[ing] you up to councils and prisons [sunedria kai phulakas]." This makes the best sense because trial at the Sanhedrin comes before imprisonment.

(2) In a later recension, the word sunedria became replaced with sunagoges, probably because of the similarity of the two words and probably because of increasing difficulties of Christians at synagogues. This is the version that Luke knew, and he refers to "delivering you up to synagogues and prisons [sunagogas kai phulakas]." Simply replacing the word doesn't make much sense tho, because there is no legal system for delivering people up to synagoges (as there are with Sanhedrins).

(3) In a separate recension, the original text was amended in a different way: "councils" was retained as the first item of the pair but phulakas was replaced by sunagogas. When you look at the Greek text, the two items are paired after the verb "deliver up" in just the same way as in Luke: "They will deliver you to councils and to synagogues [paradosousin humas eis sundria kai eis sunagogas]," but Mark severs the connection of "synagogues" with the first verb by tacking on the verb daresesthe "you will be beaten" at the end of the phrase. This phrasing, which preserves superficially the original word order, succeeds better than the Lukan version by referring to persecution in synagogues rather than Christians being sent there for judgment. The reference to beatings in synagogues is therefore a later development in the tradition.

But what is really fascinating about this text is inclusion of two new items: a reference to a coming "hour" of judgement and a reference to "the Holy Spirit". Amazingly, these features occur in another text in the Farewell Speeches in the Gospel of John which also makes mention of persecution in the synagogues:

"But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning. I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues [aposunagogous]; indeed the hour [hora] is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God." (John 15:26-16:2) "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit [to pneuma to hagion], whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to rememberance all that I have said to you." (John 14:26)

It seems quite possible that the text of canonical Mark was influenced by John, or at least the Johannine tradition. The main difference is that Mark has the followers "beaten" in synagogues while John refers to them being rejected by the synagogues. Mark is at least closer to John than Luke which conveys the opposite meaning -- of Christians being delivered up to synagogues. Like John, Mark claims that the Holy Spirit will help the disciples know what to say -- a role very reminiscent of the Paraclete in John. Luke only promises that the disciples will have the mouth and wisdom to defend themselves with no mention of the Spirit. Both Mark and John also refer to the "hour" at which the judgment and execution comes. What makes the parallel to John even more striking is the parallel passage in Matthew, which as we have seen tends to follow Mark more than Luke:

"Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." (Matthew 10:17-20)

Interestingly, Matthew places this passage not in the Little Apocalypse but after the appointing of the Twelve. It contains all the features that made Mark divergent from Luke (cf. the order "governors and kings," the mention of "councils" and "synagogues," the mention of "that hour," etc.), but interestingly in the phrase about councils and synagogues, Matthew tinkers with the wording that obscures the original parallelism of Luke (e.g. the preposition eis "to" is used with both in Mark but Matthew changes the second preposition to en "in" before the word sunagogais, adds the definite article tais before sunagogais which does not occur before sunedria, and adds auton "of them" after sunagogais which again is missing in the case of sunedria). What is most striking, however, is that instead of referring to "the Holy Spirit," Matthew makes reference to "the Spirit of your Father" [to pneuma tou patros humon], which exactly recalls John's reference to the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Truth as "proceeding from the Father" and who "the Father will send" (John 14:26; 15:26-27). I then checked to see if Matthew anywhere else made reference to the "Spirit of the Father" or like expressions, and indeed there are none. This is the only instance in the gospel where we find such a reference.

So there does appear to be some interesting evidence of textual changes between different editions of Mark and texts in the other gospels.

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.

Leolaia

Peacefulpete.....As you know from my post on Secret Mark, I believe that the text of Mark was tampered with considerably in the first half of the second century, if not later considering the Carpocratian version of Mark, so I view it as entirely understandable if the text was updated to refer to the more recent events of A.D. 135 via interpolations or redactions. The view I was taking issue with was that the entire "Little Apocalypse" was written after 135 (as it was used by the First and Third gospels), as well as the gospel as a whole -- and Matthew and Luke which followed. I looked for Detering's article but couldn't find it online, so I can't give you my opinion of his argument and reasons for considering a late date (which might address my objections).

Eusebius was probably relying on second-hand (or third-hand) information, and he certainly knew the name had something to do with a "star", but describing the name as a claim by bar-Kochba that he was a star fallen from heaven has such blatant polemical intent (especially in view of "fallen stars" being regarded in 1 Enoch as fallen angels, the belief from Tertullian and Origen onward that Satan was the "Lucifer" or fallen morning star of Isaiah 14:12, and the apocalyptic expectation that Satan would reveal himself in false Messiahs) that it is hard to accept it uncritically, especially in view of the archaeological evidence suggesting that the military leader primarily went by his birth name of Shimon bar-Kosba (later bastardized into bar-Koziba) and not bar-Kochba. Perhaps Jews inclined to expect a heaven-sent Messiah picked up on the name bar-Kochba and referred to him as such, and they were the source of Eusebius' information, but that is only speculation.

I sometimes post in various Yahoo forums, but I don't like the Yahoo format so much because it doesn't allow me to edit my posts, include different fonts and highlightings when posting directly, and I dislike the intrusiveness of ads. I enjoy the interface on this board very much. I actually haven't read much of the Jesus Mysteries forum, but I wonder if I might be too conservative for their taste?

Gumby....I'm very happy you found our posts of interest. I have been afraid much of what I have been writing lately is too techincal and of too narrow interest for most.

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.

Leolaia

Narkissos....Okay, I see what you mean. It's an interesting observation (and one that would hold as true only if 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is treated as an interpolation), but it is not one that necessarily implies a separate didactic tradition for the "Lord's teaching": 1) Positing a separate tradition for the "Lord's teaching" would make sense if the didactic commands are missing from the sayings tradition but instead they do correspond in thought to specific sayings in the tradition; 2) As far as we know, the pattern is simply because Paul is more likely to stress the Lord's authority of the teaching if he is only paraphrasing the thought or gist of the didactic sayings; in other words, it is simply a rhetorical device that Paul uses to link his paraphrases to the didactic tradition; 3) the tendency for James to reflect the wording of the sayings tradition without attributing counsel to the "Lord's teaching" is simply due to the fact that the author does not share Paul's rhetorical style; 4) Nonverbal or paraphrastic parallels are not always attributed to the "Lord's teaching" as the parallel on taxes in Romans 13:6-7 shows; 5) one reference to the "Lord's teaching" is apocalyptic in character and has little in common with the didactic commandments on divorce, paid apostleship, taxpaying, etc. (1 Thessalonians 4:15); 6) the dominical command on support for apostles (1 Corinthians 9:14), which paraphrases the thought in Luke 10:7-8, is closely related in thought to the statement in 1 Corinthians 10:27 which is a direct verbal parallel to the sayings tradition (cf. Gospel of Thomas 14:2); 7) David Dungan has pointed out that didactic parallels are concentrated in certain sections of the Pauline corpus (cf. Romans 12-14 and 1 Corinthians 7-14), are largely dependent on material also concentrated in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain or the church-order materials in Mark, and the commands on divorce and support for apostles in particular incorporate secondary interpretations also later incorporated in the Synoptic gospels. Similarly, the Didache and the Epistle of James draw considerably more on edited material such as the Sermon on the Mount/Plain than material elsewhere in the tradition. The implication, then, is that Paul also attests the development of certain units of catechistic material circulating under the authority of Jesus, which includes both the dominical commands and material such as Romans 13. Dungan's book is The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). Not that it's the last word on the matter (by no means), but that is what I was going by.

The "kingdom of God" as the central theme of Jesus' teaching is a huge subject and I can't go into it in the detail that Sheehan and others do, but I can note that it is presented in Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17, and Luke 9:2, 11; 19:11 as such, it forms the second petition of the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2, Matthew 6:10, Didache 8:2, the revolutionary theme that God's rule has already arrived is a common thread through the Q and Thomas traditions, not just the parables (cf. Matthew 6:10; Mark 10:15; Luke 10:9, 11:20, 17:20-21; Gospel of Thomas 3, 51, 113). The charge of Jesus being "King of the Jews" would also follow from his proclamation of the "Kingdom of God" as having arrived, and the early kerygma about Jesus having risen from the dead also corresponds to theme of being saved from death by the Kingdom (cf. Mark 9:1, 10:15-25; Luke 22:42-43; John 3:3-16, and perhaps also 11:25). Most importantly, the concept and term also appears in Paul (Galatians 5:21; Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 4:20, 6:9-10, 15:24, 50; Colossians 4:11) and John (John 3:3-16), so not only did it emerge before the earliest Christian writings but it also is the common denominator between Paul, the Synoptics, the Didache, John, and Thomas. And with respect to the parables, clear evidence against redacting "the Kingdom of God" into the parables at the stage of Mark or Q is the presence of the formula in paralleled sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, which by their wording often reveal themselves to be independent oral formulations of the same sayings. So I see no reason not to posit the inclusion of "the Kingdom of God" in the oral stage.

Leolaia

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.

Leolaia

I'm not certain, but my impression was that Epiphanius (writing c. 375) was describing a christologically more advanced form of Ebionism almost two centuries later than the descriptions of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the composition of the earlier materials in the composite Pseudo-Clementines. Much of what he described was specifically of the Elchasaic sect of Ebionism. The earlier sources emphasize the person of Jesus as someone who perfectly followed the Law and was thus chosen (adopted) as the Christ (and thus an example for other men to follow), whereas the degree to which Christ was viewed as a distinct personality or heavenly being differed considerably -- from viewing being Christ as receiving a kingly office as the True Prophet (cf. the Ascents of James), to viewing being Christ as receiving God's eternal Wisdom (cf. Matthew), to viewing Christ as the incarnation of an archangel or Heavenly Man (cf. Epiphanius).

I didn't mean not to touch the matter of the Markan Apocalypse and bar-Kochba -- too much stuff for one day! I thought the material in Mark 13, particularly its application of Daniel, fits very well with the A.D. 66-73 Jewish War and destruction of Jerusalem. I read an article a while back that listed the various predictions in the apocalypse and how they referred to specific events of the Jewish War. The Apocalypse was surely a part of the gospel as it was used by Matthew and Luke, and Papias of Hierapolis writing c. 135 knew of both Matthew and Mark, so that fact by itself renders the late dating as rather implausible in my mind. Similarly, while earlier writings (i.e. the Pauline epistles, James, 1 Peter, 1 Clement, Didache, etc.) knew the sayings of Jesus more-or-less in their oral form, Koester shows that Justin Martyr writing c. 155 knew the Synoptic gospels and had already produced a gospel harmony of Matthew-Mark-Luke which would later be used by Tatian to produce the Diatessaron. Since Mark with its Apocalypse had to precede the other gospels, and if Mark wasn't written until after 135, that does not seem to leave much time for Justin to work on his gospel harmony. But if the gospels were already in existence by the time Justin converted to Christianity in 130, that would provide enough time (likewise Tatian coverted in c. 150 and published his Diatessaron around 170-175). Finally, the expectation of a delay in Mark 13:7, 10 and the Parable of the Vineyard Husbandmen (Mark 12:1-9) suggests the passage of some time since the war, yet Mark 9:1 and 13:30 expects the end to come within the lifetime of those alive in A.D. 30. This again fits the destruction of 70 and not 135. At this point I still feel most comfortable with the composition of Mark around c. 75 and Matthew and Luke around c. 85-95. That the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was a traumatic enough experience to inspire apocalyptic speculation is apparent from Josephus and Suetonius (who refer to Messianic pretenders spawned by the events), 2 Baruch (which compares the siege and war in A.D. 66-70 with the one performed by the Babylonians), and Revelation (which many feel alludes to the events that transpired in Jerusalem).

About Simon bar-Kochba claiming to have come down from heaven, I would be careful about what Eusebius wrote. This is what he actually said:

"The leader of the Jews at this time was a man by the name of Barcocheba, who possessed the character of a robber and a murderer, but nevertheless, relying upon his name, boasted to them, as if they were slaves, that he possessed wonderful powers; and he pretended that he was a star that had come down to them out of heaven to bring them light in the midst of their misfortunes." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.6.2)

As I mentioned in my Star of Bethlehem posts, the star motif is an Messianic symbol inspired by Numbers 24:17 which refers to "a star coming out of Jacob, a scepter rising out of Israel," viewed in the intertestamental period as an epithet of the Messiah who rises from the "posterity" of Judah (cf. Testament of Judah 24:1-6). It is possible that Eusebius misunderstood the meaning of the symbol and thought it meant that Simon bar-Kochba was literally claiming to be a fallen star, having in mind the pejorative connotations to fallen stars in Isaiah 14:12, 1 Enoch, and Revelation. That Eusebius had pejorative attitudes towards bar-Kochba is evident from the above quote. As a Messianic title, the name most likely was bestowed on Simon by Rabbi Akiba ben-Joseph who recognized him as the Messiah (Yer. Ta'anit, iv. 68d ):

"Rav Shimon Ben Yochai taught, 'Akiba my master would expound the verse "a star will come from Jacob" as "Koziba will come from Jacob." When Rabbi Akiba would see bar Koziba he would say, 'There is the King Messiah.' Rav Yochanan ben Torta said: 'Akiba, grass will grow from your cheeks and still the son of David will not come." (Yer. Ta'anit, iv. 68d)

This text makes clear that the "star" was viewed not literally but as the "son of David" who would restore the Davidic Kingdom. There is nothing in Jewish writings about Simon claiming heavenly descent and the same works present his contemporaries as believing him as of the "House of David" as David's Messianic heir. From recent archaeological finds, we know that he referred to himself as "Shimon bar Kosba, prince [nasi] of Israel," and not necessarily as kochba "star" which is known only from ecclesiastical writings. Eusebius probably misunderstood the claim of Kochba as "a star coming from Jacob" as a "star coming from heaven".

Leolaia

13

Blair And The 45 Minutes Warning - Hutton Report.

by Englishman in

it seems that that nice mr. blair was acting on information believed to be genuine when he took britain to war.. that nasty old beeb beeb see has received a right bollocking for not checking it's own information properly.. it's unprecedented for the bbc to be so castigated.

click here.. heads are going to roll!.

englishman.

Leolaia

I personally wish Bush made the 45 minute claim; that would've had heaped far more crow on Bush's plate than the Nigerian uranium claim.

48

Rutherford's Views on Women

by Leolaia in

"the women make monkeys or dupes of men.

the men have before effeminate, soft and easily influenced and have lost their real manhood and sturdiness in the affairs of state and home.

for instance, when men are sitting at a table and a woman approaches, all the men arise and pay her homage and thereby elevate her to a place above men.

Leolaia

I find it most funny how Rutherford twists a scripture about men lying with men to refer to men taking their hats off when a woman enters.

Here is an even funnier Rutherford quote from the same book, Mother's Day as a satanic plot:

"The so-called 'Mother's Day' was observed in America first in 1914, the very year that Satan's world ended and when he knew his time was short to get ready for the great battle of Armageddon. To induce the people to bestow special honor and worship upon mothers would be one step towards turning the people away from the worship of God, and this is one of his means of preparing for Armageddon... On the face of it the arrangement of 'Mother's Day' seems harmless and calculated to do good. But the people are in ignorance of Satan's subtle hand in the matter, and that he is back of the movement, to turn the people away from God. The slogan is, 'The best mother who ever lived,' the purpose being to establish creature worship, or at least to divert the attention of man from the proper worship of God." (Vindication, Volume I, pp. 188-189)

I think the WTS today still claims that Mother's Day and similar holidays are improper for honoring people instead of God. But how would their claim wash today that such holidays are plots hatched by none other than Satan the Devil?

Leolaia

48

Rutherford's Views on Women

by Leolaia in

"the women make monkeys or dupes of men.

the men have before effeminate, soft and easily influenced and have lost their real manhood and sturdiness in the affairs of state and home.

for instance, when men are sitting at a table and a woman approaches, all the men arise and pay her homage and thereby elevate her to a place above men.

Leolaia

"The women make monkeys or dupes of men. The men have before effeminate, soft and easily influenced and have lost their real manhood and sturdiness in the affairs of state and home. For instance, when men are sitting at a table and a woman approaches, all the men arise and pay her homage and thereby elevate her to a place above men. The men remove their hats upon entering an elevator, if a woman is present; and these things are said to be acts of respect and to show that man is a gentleman. But it is subtle, and the real meaning is much different from that. It is a scheme of Satan to turn men away from God and from his announced rule of the proper position of man and woman. The Lord has declared that no effeminate man shall inherit the kingdom of heaven (I Corinthians 6:9). This proves that the scheme or habit of paying homage to women is not of God, but from the great enemy of God. It is a veneer of being a proper thing, and therefore it is more subtle than otherwise." (Vindication, Volume I, pp. 155-157)

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.

Leolaia

Narkissos....I think that makes a lot of sense. And the Western churches inherited both points of view and tried to hammer out a single orthodox faith -- rendering the older adoptionist and gnostic views as heresy.

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.

Leolaia

Narkissos....In brief, my point was that Paul draws from this oral tradition of Jesus sayings and thus it had to have preceded him. And while the Q-like (or Mark-like) sayings in Paul are not always attributed to "the Lord" (where instead we see just the language of the sayings), there are a number of allusions which correspond to Q/Mark sayings:

"For the married I have something to say, and this is not from me but from the Lord: a wife must not leave her husband, or if she does leave him, she must either remain unmarried or else make it up with her husband." (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)
"Again, you have learned how it was said to our ancestors: 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a writ of dismissal.' But I say this to you: everyone who divorces his wife, except for the case of fornication, makes her an adulteress; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)

"Remeber that the ministers serving in the Temple get their food from the Temple and those serving at the altar can claim their share from the altar itself. In the same sort of way the Lord directed that those who preach the gospel should get their living from the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:13-14)
"Stay in the same house, taking what food and drink they have to offer, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not move from house to house. Whenever you go into a town where they make you welcome, eat what is set before you." (Luke 10:7-8)

"We can tell you this from the Lord's own teaching, that any of us who are left alive until the Lord's coming will not have any advantage over those who have died." (1 Thessalonians 4:15)
"When all is new and the Son of Man sits on his throne of glory .... many who are the first will be last and the last, first." (Matthew 19:28-30)
"Men from east and west, from north and south, will come to take their places at the feast in the Kingdom of God. Yes, there are those now last who will be first, and those now first who will be last." (Luke 14:20)

Examples of Q/Mark/Thomas language reflected in Paul's letters include (note how the sayings are grouped similarly in certain cases):

Romans 12:14-18: "Bless those who persecute you; never curse them, bless them....Never repay evil with evil but let everyone see that you are interested only in the highest ideals. Do all you can to live at peace with everyone."
Luke 6:27: "But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you ["pray for those who persecute you," Matthew 5:44], pray for those who treat you badly. To the man who slaps you on the cheek, present the other cheek too." Mark 9:50: "Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with each other."

Romans 13:6-9: "This is also the reason why you must pay taxes, since all government officials are God's officers. They serve God by collecting taxes. Pay every government official what he has a right to ask -- whether it be direct tax or indirect, fear or honor. Avoid getting into debt, except the debt of mutual love. If you love your fellow men you shall have carried out your obligations. All the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,' and so on, are summed up in this single command: 'You must love your neighbor as yourself.' "
Matthew 22:15-22, 34-40: "Is it permissible to pay taxes to Caesar or not?... Give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.... Jesus said, 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second resembles it: 'You must love your neighbor as yourself. Of these two commandments hang the whole Law, and the Prophets too."

Romans 14:13-14: "Far from passing judgment on each other, therefore, you should make up your mind never to be the cause of your brother tripping or falling. Now I am perfectly well-aware of course, and I speak for the Lord Jesus, that no food is unclean in itself; however, if someone thinks that a particular food is unclean, then it is unclean for him."
Matthew 7:2: "In the same way you judge others, you yourself will be judged." Matthew 18:6: "But anyone who is an obstacle to bring down one of the little ones who has faith in me would be better drowned in the depths of the sea with a great millstone round his neck.... Matthew 15:11: "What goes into the mouth does not make a man unclean; it is what comes out of the mouth that makes him unclean."

1 Corinthians 13:2: "If I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."
Matthew 17:20: "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will have to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move."

1 Corinthians 2:9: "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived..."
Gospel of Thomas 17: "I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."

1 Corinthians 4:8: "Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings!"
Gospel of Thomas 81: "Let him who has grown rich be king."

1 Corinthians 10:27: "If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you."
Gospel of Thomas 14:2: "When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, eat what they set before you."

Philippians 3:3: "For we are the true circumcision, who worships God in spirit."
Gospel of Thomas 54: "Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

On your second question, I have already conjectured (imho) that a body of Nazorean parables preceded Jesus who adapted them to refer to the Kingdom of God. It is not the moral instruction itself that is revolutionary but its application to refer to a new relationship between God and humankind, and reconceiving the Messianic Kingdom as not the restitution of Jewish sovereignty but as something already existing in those who live charitably and with love for each other (cf. Sheehan's analysis)