Perhaps you would be interested in an article in the latest Vigiliae
Christianae which presents several possible schemes for the growth of
Gospel of Thomas.

best,
Stephen Goranson
goranson@...

Thank you Stevan. My question may be misleading. What I am
looking for is a listing of passages in NT writings, other than the
gospels, containing quotes or allusions of/to any words of Jesus
e.g. 1Cor 11.24f

Anton Mula

Below you see e-mail addresses and names (when known) of XTalk members
who (a) are no longer receiving messages because their inboxes are
blocking mail delivery and bouncing messages back to our server and (b)
who cannot automatically be "unbounced".

If you have direct contact with them, please let them know of the
situation so that we can get them back into the fold..

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

weismann@...   Francisco Weismann

joseph@...  Joe Baxter

list@...  serge_taran

Pickydeer@...

rabibehrens@...

tomkirbel@...   tom_kbel

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
           Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
           jgibson000@...

--- In crosstalk2@y..., "bjtraff" <bj_traff@h...> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but which "fact" is this Steve?  That GThomas is
probably
> 2nd Century and dependent on the Canonicals? :-)


> Good heavens.  The "known" first century documents are in the
Canon.
> Those that "might be first century, but are probably second and
later
> are not.  Yet many silly scholars appear bent on using the earlier
> texts over the later ones.  How odd.

?  Or is it more likely because it is too late to be
> apostolic?  Now, if you could prove that it is a FACT that GThomas
> was 1st Century, that would be interesting to say the least.

Isn't it a bit odd to claim that the canon was formed of first
century documents when it wasn't even the first century at that time?
It isn't a FACT that Thomas is first century, but then it isn't a
FACT that the canonical gospels are, either. I happen to think that
both are, but how could it truly be a fact without external evidence?

Best Wishes

Andrew Smith

There is a book that has been out for a while, published under the auspices of
the Biblical Archaeological Society of Hershel Shanks, that records a conference
on the historical Jesus with Stephen J. Patterson, Marcus J. Borg, and John
Dominic Crossan.

There is an introduction by Shanks, a chapter on Sources for a Life of Jesus by
Patterson, a chapter on the Palestinian background of the life of Jesus by Borg,
a chapter on the infancy of Jesus by Crossan, a chapter on contemporary
portraits of Jesus by Borg, a chapter on the passion-resurrection by Crossan,
and a panel discussion.

Because it is based on a public conference, the style is easy-going,
non-technical, enjoyable, and thoroughyl accessible.

Patterson talks a little about the secular references to Jesus and the synoptic
problem, two well-plowed fields.  Patterson also lays out some of the methods
for sorting fact from fiction in the gospels, most of them negative in result.
I am a fan of Patterson's work on Thomas, and Patterson brings a novice up to
date on the basic issues involved.

Borg's first presentation focuses of five cultural dynamics of Jesus' world:
colonial, cosmopolitan, peasant, purity, and patriarchal.  Borg talks about
imperialism, taxation, Hellenization, urbanization, pre-industrial agrarian
society, elitism, the purity system, androcentrism, and patriarchy.  This
chapter reflects the contemporary emphasis on the Jewishness of Jesus.

Crossan outlines the infancy narrative of Luke in five acts parallel between
Jesus and John: Angelic Annunciations (1:5-25 and 1:26-38), Publicized Birth
(1:57-58 and 2:7-14), Circumcision and Naming (1:59-63a and 2:21), Public
Presentation and Prophesy of Destiny (1:65-79 and 2:21-38), and the Description
of the Child's Growth (1:80 and 2:40-52).  Luke paints Jesus as superior to John
and, thus, greater than the patriarchal traditions of his people.  On the other
hand, Moses and Jesus are compared by Matthew, who knew popular expansions about
the life of Moses.  The first act is called Ruler's Plot, and it has the scenes
Sign (2:1-2), Fear (2:3), Consultation (2:4-6), and Massacre (2:7-8, 16-18).
The second act is called Father's Decision, which has the scenes of Divorce
(1:18-19), Reassurance (1:20-23), and Remarriage (1:24).  The final act is the
Child's Deliverance, in which Jesus ironically flees to Egypt.  The middle
level, as opposed to the surface level just seen, concerns the virginal
conception and the Bethlehem birth.  These are retrojective prophecy.  And then
there is the basic level, which is the most important: the implicit comparison
of Jesus to Augustus.  The pagan critic Celsus thought it absurd to claim that
_Jesus_ was divine, as Jesus was a lower-class peasant.  Crossan says: "in
summary, then, it is not enough to keep saying that Jesus was not born of a
virgin, was not born of David's lineage, was not born in Behtlehem, that there
were no stables, no shepherds, no star, no Magi, no massacre of the infants, no
flight into Egypt.  All of that I think is absolutely true.  But it still begs
the real question, which is, then as now, where you find the divine manifest on
this earth.  Is it in Ceasar, or is it in Jesus?  Is it in imperial grandeur or
peasant poverty?"  This was my favorite chapter of the book.

Borg talks about the popular image of Jesus as the Son of God and the
(classical) scholarly image of Jesus as eschatalogical prophet.  Borg summarizes
the views of Sanders as 'Restoration Eschatology Prophet', Mack as
'Hellenistic-type Cynic Sage', Fiorenza as 'Egalitarian Wisdom Prophet', Horsley
as 'Social Prophet', himself as 'Spirit Person', and Crossan as 'Jewish Cynic
Peasant'.  Borg concludes with the observations that the eschatology debate is
not over, that the consensus sees Jesus as a wisdom teacher, that there is a
tendency to see Jesus as political, and that the concept of Jesus as spirit
person is not commonly addressed, although both Borg and Crossan present a Jesus
who is a mystic and healer.

Crossan presents material on the passion, the crucifixion, and the resurrection.
Crossan presents the well-known dichotomy of history memorized or prophecy
historicized.  Crossan begins with the example that Jesus' silence is based
prototypes such as Isaiah 53:7.  Another example is the theme of the abused
scapegoat, as explained in the Epistle of Barnabas.  "I am completely convinced
that the line went from scapegoat to Jesus because those poking reeds make more
sense moving in that direction than the reverse.  The scapegoat typifies Jesus,
who dies 'for our sins.'"  Crossan proposes that Jesus was buried by those who
crucified him, if he was buried at all, which is doubtful given that nonburial
was the shame of the cross, as shown by quotes from Hengel.  Crossan also notes
"the stead imporvement in Jesus' burial across the gospel texts."  Finally,
Crossan addresses the resurrection.  Crossan asks us to imagine a follower of
Jesus in Galilee who had been preaching and exorcising in the name of Jesus and
who finally discovers, after three months, that Jesus had been executed in
Jerusalem.  But the kingdom of God still had been coming in power all this time.
So they get on with the business of the kingdom.  Finally, Crossan argues that
the risen apparitions are a matter of Christian authority.  Crossan takes as his
example the development of the story of the race of Peter and the beloved
disciple from the tradition mentioned in Luke 24:12.  Crossan also notes that
the threefold affirmation of Peter vindicates him after the threefold denial.

Lastly, there is a panel discussion with Shanks, Crossan, Borg, and Patterson
and a bibliography.

As I said, the style is easy.  I read through the whole thing in one sitting,
and it is a very enjoyable read.  So give it a look.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1880317141

best,
Peter Kirby

PS - Are there any programmers or bilingual people here?  Anyone interested in
the technology behind the Babel Fish?  I have started a new Yahoo! group on
machine translation, possibly the first of its kind.  Please be kind enough to
take a look and check out the bookmarks.  I hope to see some of you there.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MachineTranslation/

In a message dated 7/11/2002 3:14:59 PM Central Daylight Time,
kirby@... writes:

snipped for brevity

>
> Lastly, there is a panel discussion with Shanks, Crossan, Borg, and
> Patterson
> and a bibliography.
>
> As I said, the style is easy.  I read through the whole thing in one
> sitting,
> and it is a very enjoyable read.  So give it a look.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1880317141
>
> best,
> Peter Kirby
>

Thanks for an excellent review, Peter.

There's a conference with Crossan, Borg, and Mack that is of a similar tone
out on video tape.  I doubt if it's made its way to DVD yet.  If anyone's
interested I can locate the ordering info on it.  I know several university
libraries have stocked it.

Ed Tyler

http://hometown.aol.com/leeedgartyler/myhomepage/index.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com
Friday 12 July
"Dead Sea Scrolls: a never-ending saga"
by Dalia Shehori

Stephen Goranson
goranson@...

At 09:46 AM 7/13/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>http://www.haaretzdaily.com
>Friday 12 July
>"Dead Sea Scrolls: a never-ending saga"
>by Dalia Shehori
>
>Stephen Goranson
>goranson@...

Stephen,
Would you please be more precise about the URL? I have searched the site
for July 12 and can't find this article.
Unless perhaps it is filed under Sports?

Bob

Bob Schacht asks:

>><<

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=185926&sw=Dead+Se
a

Stephen G.,

The article says:

>>Some of the outstanding new information that can be mentioned: The Essenes
used the solar calendar. There is nothing new about that. However, there was
a debate among researchers, says Dimant, about how and from where it had
come to the Essenes. There were those who said it came from Egypt. However,
in recent years, Babylonian texts from the second century B.C.E. have been
studied and published, and it turns out that the Babylonians had just such a
calendar.<<

This would be news to me!

Otto Neugebauer, who should know if there is any hint of a solar calendar in
use in Babylon, has never mentioned any hint at such thing as far as I know.
What are these "Babylonian texts from the second century B.C.E." which "have
been studied and published" "in recent years"? Are we talking about a 364 or
a 365 day "solar" calendar, or something else entirely? What connects this
Babylonian solar calendar with the 364 day schematic calendar of the Qumran
sectarian scrolls the article's author calls "solar"?

Just curious...

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Click on "Week's End."
  S. Goranson

> Stephen,<BR>
> Would you please be more precise about the URL? I have searched the
> site <BR>
> for July 12 and can't find this article.<BR>

At 11:04 PM 7/13/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Bob Schacht asks for the detailed URL:
>
> >><<
>
>http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=185926&sw=Dead+Sea

Thanks!
Bob

David H., perhaps one publication D. Dimant had in mind was in JAOS in
2001, as I recall, esoteric Babylonian text, compared to Qumran mss,
with an interesting phrase on keeping or observing or watching.

(On a related note [cf. the late Flusser's comment in Haaretz]: to
repeat briefly, I find the source of "Essenes" in Qumran Hebrew texts,
and, increasingly, others, including J. VanderKam, do too.)

Stephen Goranson
goranson@...

--- In crosstalk2@y..., "smithand44" <smithand44@h...> wrote:

{Snip my stuff}

>Isn't it a bit odd to claim that the canon was formed of first
>century documents when it wasn't even the first century at that
>time? It isn't a FACT that Thomas is first century, but then it
>isn't a FACT that the canonical gospels are, either. I happen to
>think that both are, but how could it truly be a fact without
>external evidence?

Hello Andrew

Actually, I was tweaking Steve a bit for his hyperbole, as curious
assertion about the *factual dating* of GThomas and why it never made
it into the Canon in the first place.  As you have rightly noted, the
question of dating ancient texts can often prove quite problematic,
though I would add that this does not make the effort impossible.  I
would argue that given the criteria that we use in dating ancient
texts, it can be more confidently demonstrated that many of the books
found in the Canon are 1st Century.  Using this same criteria, and
applying it objectively, we can demonstrate that other texts are more
likely 2nd Century.  Can any of Christian text be called 1st Century
as historical FACT?  Well, perhaps FACT is too strong a word
(excepting the undisputed Pauline's, which do look to be 1st Century
as historical fact).  After all, in the past I have argued that
*facts* are pretty scarce commodities in historical studies.  All of
that said, I will stick with my original argument that all of the
KNOWN 1st Century Christian documents available to us are found in
the Canonical NT.  Some of those books are very likely 2nd Century
(i.e.  2 Peter and probably the final form of GJohn).  But the fact
(pun intended) remains that nothing has been proven about the
apocryphal texts visa vie their date ranges, outside of the
possibility that some of them MIGHT be 1st Century.

As you can see, when it comes to the specific case of GThomas, I have
yet to be convinced, but remain open to arguments that others may
wish to put forward.

Peace,

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

In Romans 11:1, Paul describes himself not as a "Jew" (i.e., Judean), but
as an "Israelite." Was this description a matter of choice, or what? What
did he mean by this? Apparently, Paul knew that his Roman audience would
understand the difference between "Judean" and "Israelite." Was the
difference simply that it indicates that Paul was from the Jewish diaspora
(possibly including Galilee) rather than from Judea? Or is he making some
other point?

Interestingly, Jesus is never(?) called either a Judean or an Israelite,
but rather a Nazarene/Nazorean (Matt 2:23, Acts 24:5) or of course, most
frequently, "of Nazareth" even though most others mentioned in the gospels
are not identified with a locative. Is this merely because of an early
Christian attempt to avoid the Jewishness of Jesus? or what?

Bob

Bob Schacht wrote:

> In Romans 11:1, Paul describes himself not as a
> "Jew" (i.e., Judean), but as an "Israelite."
> Was this description a matter of choice, or what?

Bob,

As in Philip 3:5, Paul's emphasizes that he descends
from the whole house of Israel (the tribe of Benjamin,
in particular). If he emphasized his "Judeanness", he
could have been perceived as distancing himself from
his own Galilean savior.
>
> Interestingly, Jesus is never(?) called either a
> Judean or an Israelite,

Though he was crucified as "King of the Judeans". How
ironic.

> but rather a Nazarene/Nazorean (Matt 2:23, Acts
> 24:5) or of course, most
> frequently, "of Nazareth" even though most others
> mentioned in the gospels
> are not identified with a locative.

Perhaps we could say that most of the Gospel
traditions codify various ways of being "Galilean
Israelite" -- just as the Mishnah traditions codify
ways of being "Judean Israelite".

> Is this merely because of an early
> Christian attempt to avoid the Jewishness
> of Jesus? or what?

"Jewishness" is an anachronism (though I use it all
the time anyway). It's more likely an attempt to avoid
any implied "Judeanness" of Jesus.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com

Interestingly in John's Gospel Nathanael is called 'an Israelite in whom
there is no deceit' (Jn 1.47) and he names Jesus 'the King of Israel' (Jn
1.49).

Best wishes,
Jacob Knee
(Cam, Glos.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Loren Rosson [mailto:rossoiii@...]
Sent: 15 July 2002 16:29
To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [XTalk] Israelites


Bob Schacht wrote:

> In Romans 11:1, Paul describes himself not as a
> "Jew" (i.e., Judean), but as an "Israelite."
> Was this description a matter of choice, or what?

--- In crosstalk2@y..., Bob Schacht <bobschacht@i...> wrote:
>In Romans 11:1, Paul describes himself not as a "Jew" (i.e.,
>Judean), but as an "Israelite." Was this description a matter of
>choice, or what? What did he mean by this? Apparently, Paul knew
>that his Roman audience would understand the difference
>between "Judean" and "Israelite." Was the difference simply that it
>indicates that Paul was from the Jewish diaspora (possibly including
>Galilee) rather than from Judea? Or is he making some other point?

I think Paul gives the clearest definition of who is an "Israelite"
in Romans 9, where he identifies the people of Israel as being "of my
own race" (9:3-4), then goes on to identify them as descended from
Abraham through Sara (9:9), and Jacob through Rebekah (9:10).  The
contrast of Gentiles verses Israelites in 11:25-29 confirms that in
Paul's eyes, the term Israelite and Jew is synonymous.  As to his
central point, he seems to set up the Jews/Israelites as specially
blessed, and chosen by God through the Patriarchs as receivers of the
law, and of God's promise (see, for example, Romans 3:1-2).

>Interestingly, Jesus is never(?) called either a Judean or an
>Israelite, but rather a Nazarene/Nazorean (Matt 2:23, Acts 24:5) or
>of course, most frequently, "of Nazareth" even though most others
>mentioned in the gospels are not identified with a locative. Is this
>merely because of an early Christian attempt to avoid the Jewishness
>of Jesus? or what?

Given Paul's statement Romans 1:3 where Jesus is identified as a
descendent of David, it is clear that Paul connects Jesus with not
only Israel, but specifically, with the tribe of Judah (David's
tribe).  As for the Gospels connecting Jesus with Nazareth, this
seems to be simply a statement of his place of origin.  At the same
time, I would argue that the unanimous agreement amongst the
evangelists (and Paul) that Jesus was thought to be descended from
David made him both a Jew and a Judaean.

Peace,

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

Bob, Brian, (others) --

We should also keep in mind the flexible meanings of
the term "Judean". Hanson and Oakman, in Palestine in
the Time of Jesus, pinpoint five distinct usages (p
176). According to them, Judeans can refer to:

(1) The inhabitants of Judea (as opposed to Galilee,
Perea, Samaria, Idumea, etc.)
(2) The inhabitants of all Palestine (including
Galilee, Perea, Samaria, Idumea, etc.)
(3) All those in the Mediterranean and Middle-East who
have connections to Judah
(4) All those professing allegiance to the state
religion of Judah (even converts)
(5) The elites of Judah (as opposed to peasants)

"Which of these senses is meant in any given context
depends upon who is speaking of whom, and it what
context." (ibid)

But I usually use "Judean" in the sense of (1) and
"Jew" in the sense of (2), even if the latter is an
anachronism. It cuts down on confusion.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com

Brian Trafford wrote:

>I would argue that the unanimous agreement
>amongst the evangelists (and Paul) that Jesus
>was thought to be descended from
>David made him both a Jew and a Judaean.

The Davidic lineage in Matthew's Gospel no doubt
evolved as a weapon to counter the historical
rejection of Jesus' "kingship". The Judean honorific
"Son of David", on the other hand, may have some
historical roots, though I think Jesus probably hated
being called that, since his messiahship was more
prophetic than kingly. In fact, Bill Herzog has
persuasively argued that the parable of the Unmerciful
Servant (Mt 18:23-34), in particular, is a slam on
Davidic pretenders (Athronges of Judea, Simon bar
Giora, etc).

The mocking honorific on the cross -- "King of the
Judeans" -- simply broadcast how Rome would deal with
any messiah who had pretensions (whether real or
perceived) to rule in her place. From this standpoint,
it made little difference that Jesus was a Galilean
and not a Judean. The demonstration in the temple and
the eucharist-event took place in Judea; and that's
where the crucifixion happened, with plenty of Judeans
watching.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

--- In crosstalk2@y..., Loren Rosson <rossoiii@y...> wrote:

> The Davidic lineage in Matthew's Gospel no doubt
> evolved as a weapon to counter the historical
> rejection of Jesus' "kingship".

I am unclear as to why you have singled out Matthew's Gospel, and
specifically his geneology, as an apologetic "weapon" when we already
know from Paul and Mark that Jesus was considered the son of David
very early on (certainly earlier than Matt or Luke's BN).  Are you
arguing that the principle reason Matt offered his geneology of Jesus
was to combat the general rejection of Jesus' Messianic status by the
Jews, and establishing him as the rightful king?  If so, I find this
belief to be somewhat suspect in that Matt seemed most interested in
connecting Jesus to Moses, not David, and the overall theme of Jesus
as king is given little play in the bulk of Matthew's Gospel as a
whole (one direct mention in the BN at Matthew 2:2 and twice during
the PN in Matthew 27:29,37 (following Mark 15:18,26).

> The Judean honorific
> "Son of David", on the other hand, may have some
> historical roots, though I think Jesus probably hated
> being called that, since his messiahship was more
> prophetic than kingly.

I agree that the title as "Son of David" is probably very early,
either given to Jesus shortly after his death, or possibly during his
own lifetime.  At the same time, I am unsure how we can assertain
Jesus' personal opinion of the title.  Since a Davidic Messiahship
could be prophetic (and kingly) in nature, I do not see why it is
incompatible with a prophetic self view by the historical Jesus.
After all, David himself is considered by Jews to be a prophet/king.

> In fact, Bill Herzog has
> persuasively argued that the parable of the Unmerciful
> Servant (Mt 18:23-34), in particular, is a slam on
> Davidic pretenders (Athronges of Judea, Simon bar
> Giora, etc).

This is an interesting interpretation.  Personally I connect it with
Jesus' earlier command found in Matt 6:12,14-15, and the overall
theme of forgiveness (as well as general condemnation of hypocracy
and double dealing) found within GMatt as a whole.

> The mocking honorific on the cross -- "King of the
> Judeans" -- simply broadcast how Rome would deal with
> any messiah who had pretensions (whether real or
> perceived) to rule in her place. From this standpoint,
> it made little difference that Jesus was a Galilean
> and not a Judean. The demonstration in the temple and
> the eucharist-event took place in Judea; and that's
> where the crucifixion happened, with plenty of Judeans
> watching.

The title, of course, was "King of the Jews" (BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN),
not just of the Judaeans.  I am aware of the politically correct
distinction drawn between Jews and Judaeans by some in recent
scholarship (for example, by the translators of _The Complete
Gospels_), but the text (whether it be the Gospels, or Acts, or Paul)
makes no distinction between Jews and Judaeans, and in my opinion it
is poor translation methodology to make such a distinction now.

Peace,

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

Here's an interesting study of Messianism in recent history:

Anthropology & Medicine

Publisher: Carfax Publishing Company, part of the Taylor & Francis Group

Issue: Volume 9, Number 1/April 01, 2002, Pages: 25 - 36

Mosiach is here now: just open your eyes and you can see him
Simon Dein

Abstract:      Religious groups deal with failed prophecy in different
ways. This paper
                     examines messianic expectations among Lubavitch Hasidim in
                     Stamford Hill and their response to the death of their
leader whom they
                     held to be the Messiah. It is based on eight years of
participant
                     observation in the community. In agreement with
Melton's theory, when
                     the Rebbe died, Lubavitchers held that the Rebbe was
more powerful in
                     the spiritual realm without the hinderance of a
physical body. However
                     some have now claimed that he never died. Several even
state that the
                     Rebbe is God. This is a significant finding. It is
unknown in the history of
                     Judaism to hold that the religious leader is God and to
this extent the
                     group is unique. There are certain Christian elements
which apparently
                     inform the messianic ideas of this group.

At 02:39 AM 7/16/2002 +0000, bjtraff wrote:
>...The title, of course, was "King of the Jews" (BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN),
>not just of the Judaeans.  I am aware of the politically correct
>distinction drawn between Jews and Judaeans by some in recent
>scholarship (for example, by the translators of _The Complete
>Gospels_), but the text (whether it be the Gospels, or Acts, or Paul)
>makes no distinction between Jews and Judaeans, and in my opinion it
>is poor translation methodology to make such a distinction now....

This is the pot calling the kettle black. If the text makes no distinction,
then your distinction is as wrong as his. This has nothing to do with
political correctness.

Bob

Bob Schacht observes:

>>Here's an interesting study of Messianism in recent history: ...

"It is unknown in the history of Judaism to hold that the religious leader
is God and to this extent the [Lubavitch Hasidim in Stamford Hill] group is
unique. There are certain Christian elements which apparently inform the
messianic ideas of this group."<<

I think that possible Christian influence is also evidenced by the accounts
Gershom Scholem provides of medieval Jewish mystical and messianic groups
(_Major Trends_).

For example, expectation of a Davidic messiah seems to be quite common among
modern and medieval Jews (I hear it stated time and again on Jewish bulletin
boards, stated by Jewish participants - although not Lubavitchers as far as
I recall), yet some modern critics think that this was NOT a well entrenched
ancient Jewish concept.

Yet, if medieval and modern Jews express it, does that mean Judaism has
assimilated this concept from Christianity, or does it mean Christianity
assimilated it from ancient Judaism(s), or was the idea independently
developed by both Jews and Christians ("independence," of course, can mean
either accidental development of similar ideas or both created similar ideas
in reaction to common influences)?

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

--- In crosstalk2@y..., Bob Schacht <bobschacht@i...> wrote:

>This is the pot calling the kettle black. If the text makes no
>distinction, then your distinction is as wrong as his. This has
>nothing to do with political correctness.

I am unclear as to what you are talking about here Bob. Lorren's (and
the _Complete Gospels_) translation is incorrect based on
linguistics. IOUDAIWN is properly translated as Jews, not Judaeans.

In my own case, I said that Jesus was called a Judaean because he was
thought to be descended from David who was himself from the tribe of
Judah (see Paul, the Gospels, and Hebrews).  Naturally this makes him
a Judaean, a Jew, and an Israelite (by Paul's definition, as well as
convention), but one could also be a Jew without being  Judaean
(again as we find in the case of Paul, who was of the tribe of
Benjamin).  How is my definition affected by the translation of the
word IOUDAIWN?

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

[Brian]
> I am unclear as to what you are talking about here
> Bob. Lorren's (and the _Complete Gospels_)
> translation is incorrect based on linguistics.
> IOUDAIWN is properly translated as Jews,
> not Judaeans.

Brian,

I haven't the competency for such linguistic
enquiries. But I can say that many competent scholars
-- not just those behind writing The Complete Gospels
-- disagree with you here. According to them, if we
are quite precise, IOUDAIWN is better translated
"Judeans" and not "Jews", most often refering to the
peoples and beliefs found in the Judean (as opposed to
Galilean and Perean) way of life. But this isn't
always the case, granted -- and see again
Hanson/Oakman's fivefold distinction of the term.

And please understand (to echo Bob) that political
correctness is hardly the issue here (though I
appreciate your sensitivity to redefinition games).
The more we learn about first century "Judaisms", the
more diverse they appear to have been and the less
legitimate the term itself becomes. Only by the third
century can we really speak of a monolithic Judaism
per se, consistent belief patterns irrespective of
geographical locale. That's the reason for making
these distinctions.

[Loren]
>> The Davidic lineage in Matthew's Gospel no doubt
>> evolved as a weapon to counter the historical
>> rejection of Jesus' "kingship".

[Brian]
>I am unclear as to why you have singled out Matthew's
>Gospel, and specifically his geneology, as an
apologetic
>"weapon" when we already know from Paul and Mark
>that Jesus was considered the son of David very early
>on (certainly earlier than Matt or Luke's BN).

Matthew is the best example of this, but of course
you're right about the others too.

[Brian]
>Are you arguing that the principle reason Matt
>offered his geneology of Jesus was to combat the
>general rejection of Jesus' Messianic status by the
>Jews, and establishing him as the rightful king?

I think Matt offered his genealogy for a number of
reasons, nearly all of which were apologetic in nature
and served as agonistic weapons against historical
charges/slanders -- illegitimacy for one (note the
inclusion of the four notorious women), the title on
the cross (which derisively implied Jesus was anything
but "King of the Judeans"), etc.

[Brian]
>If so, I find this belief to be somewhat suspect
>in that Matt seemed most interested in
>connecting Jesus to Moses, not David, and the overall
theme of Jesus
>as king is given little play in the bulk of Matthew's
Gospel as a
>whole (one direct mention in the BN at Matthew 2:2
and twice during
>the PN in Matthew 27:29,37 (following Mark 15:18,26).

The connection to Moses is stronger, but the
connections to David are just as explicit even if less
attested. In effect, Matthew portrays Jesus as the new
Moses/new David.

[Loren]
> In fact, Bill Herzog has persuasively
> argued that the parable of the Unmerciful
> Servant (Mt 18:23-34), in particular, is a
> slam on Davidic pretenders (Athronges of
> Judea, Simon bar Giora, etc).

[Brian]
>This is an interesting interpretation.  Personally
>I connect it with Jesus' earlier command found in
>Matt 6:12,14-15, and the overall
>theme of forgiveness (as well as general
>condemnation of hypocracy
>and double dealing) found within GMatt as a whole.

The problem, Brian, is that Mt 18:23-34 does not
illustrate the principle of forgiveness -- whether
that found in Mt 6:12,14-15 (as you believe) or Mt
18:21-22 (as Matthew believed). In 18:21 Peter asks
Jesus how many times he should forgive a sinning
member of the church -- "as many as seven times"? --
to which Jesus replies "not seven times, but
seventy-seven" (18:22). He then tells the story of The
Unmerciful Servant to illustrate this principle of
forgiveness, which of course it doesn't do at all!
18:21-35, taken as a whole, indicates that God,
through Jesus, tells us to forgive people all the time
-- only to abandon that very standard in nailing the
servant after his first failure.

Bill Herzog argues convincingly (see Parables as
Subversive Speech) that the parable assumes the
setting of a Davidic pretender who has successfully
defeated Israel's enemies (Rome, etc) and ushered in
the new age. After all, the opening scene of the story
portrays a quintessential messianic moment. If the
largest amount of debt conceivable has been cancelled
(10,000 talents, an outlandish figure), then the
messianic age has begun -- "the fulfillment of the
sabbatical and jubilee hopes condensed into a single
moment". But that moment is short-lived, because no
sooner has the new age of debt-forgiveness been
started than it has been cancelled by the cutthroat
tactics of a typical bureaucratic retainer. And his
lack of mercy makes the king look like a fool in turn,
so the king reverts to "business as usual", handing
over the servant to the torturers.

The point of the story, as Herzog sees it, is that
relying on Davidic messiahs for deliverance from debt
and bondage contains a hidden contradiction: no sooner
would a Davidic movement succeed in overthrowing its
oppressors than would it begin to take on the role of
an oppressor itself. Look at Solomon; look at Omri;
look at the king in this parable. Personally, I think
The Unmerciful Servant would have been better placed
by John after his 6:1-15 than by Matthew after his
18:21-22.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com

Bob Schacht writes:
"It is unknown in the history of Judaism to hold that the religious leader
is God."

Rick:
What about 4Q521?  Not an explicit deification of the Messiah, but certainly
an ascription of divine powers.

On a similar note (similar in that it is Qumranic), there is also the
"self-glorification hymn" (as designated by Esther Eshel)

"I shall be reckoned with the angels, my dwelling is in the holy council.
Who [...] and who has been despised like me? And who has been rejected of
men like me? And who compares to me in enduring evil? No teaching compares
to my teaching. For I sit [...] in heaven. Who is like me among the angels?
Who could cut off my words? And who could measure the flow of my lips? Who
can associate with me and thus compare with my judgment? I am the beloved of
the King, a companion of the holy ones and none can accompany me. And to my
glory none can compare, for I [...]. Neither with gold I will crown myself,
nor with refined gold [...]"
[4Q431 and 4Q427 fr.7]

The author (thought by some to be the Teacher of Righteousness) has just
deified himself.

Regards,
Rick Sumner
Calgary, Alberta Canada

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "bjtraff" <bj_traff@...>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:11 AM
Subject: [XTalk] Re: Israelites/Judeans


> --- In crosstalk2@y..., Bob Schacht <bobschacht@i...> wrote:
>
> >This is the pot calling the kettle black. If the text makes no
> >distinction, then your distinction is as wrong as his. This has
> >nothing to do with political correctness.
>
> I am unclear as to what you are talking about here Bob. Lorren's (and
> the _Complete Gospels_) translation is incorrect based on
> linguistics. IOUDAIWN is properly translated as Jews, not Judaeans.
>
> In my own case, I said that Jesus was called a Judaean because he was
> thought to be descended from David who was himself from the tribe of
> Judah (see Paul, the Gospels, and Hebrews).  Naturally this makes him
> a Judaean, a Jew, and an Israelite (by Paul's definition, as well as
> convention), but one could also be a Jew without being  Judaean
> (again as we find in the case of Paul, who was of the tribe of
> Benjamin).  How is my definition affected by the translation of the
> word IOUDAIWN?

Isn't there some anachronism here?  In the 1st century there were no "Jews,"
only Judaeans (Aram yehuddaya; Heb yehudym, Grk ioudaiwn) who, like those in
the diaspora were Hebrews (Aram ebraya, Heb ibrym, Grk hEbraiwn).  "Judeans"
is an English rendering of an ancient word. "Jews" is a word that only goes
back to middle English.

Jack

At 12:26 AM 7/16/2002 -0600, you wrote:

>Bob Schacht writes:
>"It is unknown in the history of Judaism to hold that the religious leader
>is God."

Please don't shoot the messenger. I did not *write* that sentence; I
*forwarded* it.

>Rick:
>What about 4Q521?  Not an explicit deification of the Messiah, but certainly
>an ascription of divine powers.
>
>On a similar note (similar in that it is Qumranic), there is also the
>"self-glorification hymn" (as designated by Esther Eshel)
>
>"I shall be reckoned with the angels, my dwelling is in the holy council.
>Who [...] and who has been despised like me? And who has been rejected of
>men like me? And who compares to me in enduring evil? No teaching compares
>to my teaching. For I sit [...] in heaven. Who is like me among the angels?
>Who could cut off my words? And who could measure the flow of my lips? Who
>can associate with me and thus compare with my judgment? I am the beloved of
>the King, a companion of the holy ones and none can accompany me. And to my
>glory none can compare, for I [...]. Neither with gold I will crown myself,
>nor with refined gold [...]"
>[4Q431 and 4Q427 fr.7]
>
>The author (thought by some to be the Teacher of Righteousness) has just
>deified himself.
>
>Regards,
>Rick Sumner
>Calgary, Alberta Canada

Thanks for this interesting text. You'll have to take it up with the author
of the article.
Bob

--- In crosstalk2@y..., Loren Rosson <rossoiii@y...> wrote:

> I haven't the competency for such linguistic
> enquiries. But I can say that many competent scholars
> -- not just those behind writing The Complete Gospels
> -- disagree with you here. According to them, if we
> are quite precise, IOUDAIWN is better translated
> "Judeans" and not "Jews", most often refering to the
> peoples and beliefs found in the Judean (as opposed to
> Galilean and Perean) way of life. But this isn't
> always the case, granted -- and see again
> Hanson/Oakman's fivefold distinction of the term.

There are times when "Judaean" could be used as the proper
translation of IOUDAIWN, but it also serves as the general
description of all of the descendents of Abraham, not only those who
lived within Judaea itself, making the use of "Jew" more
appropriate.  Looking at Paul's understanding of the word IOUDAIWN,
we can see that he often uses it interchangeably with those who have
been circumcized, or those he calls Israelites, both of which groups
encompass a much larger designation than merely Judaeans (at least by
definitions 1, 2 and 5). From Paul's letters we can see that he drew
no distinction between "Jews" and "Judaeans" as any such distinction
made no difference to him.  For example, I do not know of any
historian that would say that Peter was an apostle only to Jews who
lived in Judaea.  Clearly he went to those in many cities, including
those outside of Palestine.

Now, as for Hanson and Oakman's linguistic preference for "Judaean",
they have simply exchanged one English word, "Jew", directly for
another, "Judaean".  After all, if we use definitions (3) and (4)
(which are the ones most typically used by Paul in his epistles),
then calling them Judaeans removes all meaningful distinctions from
the group.  They become the catch all group best defined
as "descendents of Abraham through Sarah and Jacob through Rebekah".

> And please understand (to echo Bob) that political
> correctness is hardly the issue here (though I
> appreciate your sensitivity to redefinition games).
> The more we learn about first century "Judaisms", the
> more diverse they appear to have been and the less
> legitimate the term itself becomes. Only by the third
> century can we really speak of a monolithic Judaism
> per se, consistent belief patterns irrespective of
> geographical locale. That's the reason for making
> these distinctions.

Actually, I would have to disagree here, as the authors of _The
Complete Gospels_ specifically state that their preference is driven
by a desire to clarify that, based on the text of the NT, not all
Jews were held to be responsible for the death of Jesus.  For them,
the change from "Jews" to "Judeans" was meant to remove this stigma
that has led to so much tragedy and persecution from Christians
against the Jews.  This may be a laudable goal, but it still plays
fast and loose with the 1st Century understanding of the word
IOUDAIWN (as represented by Paul's epistles in particular).

> I think Matt offered his genealogy for a number of
> reasons, nearly all of which were apologetic in nature
> and served as agonistic weapons against historical
> charges/slanders -- illegitimacy for one (note the
> inclusion of the four notorious women), the title on
> the cross (which derisively implied Jesus was anything
> but "King of the Judeans"), etc.

I think the confession of the magi (against the unbelief of the
wicked King Herod, "all Jerusalem" and the chief priests) found in
Matt 2:2-3 already serves this purpose, as the magi specifically
identify Jesus (positively) as "king of the Jews" (BASILEUS TWN
IOUDAIWN. Note that this is identical to the phrase used by Mark and
Matt on the sign hanging over Jesus' cross).  As for the defence
against charges of "mamzar" against Jesus, I do think that this could
have been seen as a problem by Matthew, though this might be a bit
overstated given Paul's seeming lack of concern on this issue.
Perhaps in Paul's day the charge of "mamzar" had yet to be made, but
by Matthew's time it was in wider circulation amongst opponents to
the early Christians.  The evidence, unfortunately, is scant either
way, leaving us largely with speculations.

> The connection to Moses is stronger, but the
> connections to David are just as explicit even if less
> attested. In effect, Matthew portrays Jesus as the new
> Moses/new David.

While this is true, the point remains that Matthew's principle
concern appears to be directed towards a prophetic Jesus, or at the
very least, a prophet/king/ruler (all of which could be
considered "Anointed/Christ") than simply to Jesus as King.

> The problem, Brian, is that Mt 18:23-34 does not
> illustrate the principle of forgiveness -- whether
> that found in Mt 6:12,14-15 (as you believe) or Mt
> 18:21-22 (as Matthew believed). In 18:21 Peter asks
> Jesus how many times he should forgive a sinning
> member of the church -- "as many as seven times"? --
> to which Jesus replies "not seven times, but
> seventy-seven" (18:22). He then tells the story of The
> Unmerciful Servant to illustrate this principle of
> forgiveness, which of course it doesn't do at all!
> 18:21-35, taken as a whole, indicates that God,
> through Jesus, tells us to forgive people all the time
> -- only to abandon that very standard in nailing the
> servant after his first failure.

On the contrary, I would argue that Jesus intended specifically to
link the need to forgive one's neighbours in order to merit
forgiveness from the Father.  In the parable the "Master" represents
God, who forgives the unmerciful servant freely entirely on the basis
of the man's repentance and promise to make good his debt.  But when
that same man turns around and fails to forgive a much
lesser "debt/sin" from his own subordinate, the master (God)
determines that the man was unworthy of forgiveness in the first
place, and condemns him.  All of this is in accordance with Jesus'
words from Matt 6:15.  Notice how in Matthew's version of the Lord's
prayer, he uses  OFEIMHMATA (debts) in his petition for forgiveness,
as opposed to Luke's rendering of the same saying with AMARTIAS
(sins).

In my opinion, Matthew's Jesus is contrasting the justice AND mercy
of God (who forgives freely those who repent) with that of the
servant, who shows ONLY justice, but NO mercy.  In such an instance,
then God will also show no mercy, and give only justice, condemning
the unmerciful by their own standard!

> Bill Herzog argues convincingly (see Parables as
> Subversive Speech) that the parable assumes the
> setting of a Davidic pretender who has successfully
> defeated Israel's enemies (Rome, etc) and ushered in
> the new age.

As you can see, I think that Herzog's interpretation is excessively
and needlessly complex, and out of keeping with Mathew's overall
theme of the mercy/forgiveness of God being connected directly to our
mercy/forgiveness we show to one another.

> The point of the story, as Herzog sees it, is that
> relying on Davidic messiahs for deliverance from debt
> and bondage contains a hidden contradiction: no sooner
> would a Davidic movement succeed in overthrowing its
> oppressors than would it begin to take on the role of
> an oppressor itself. Look at Solomon; look at Omri;
> look at the king in this parable.

I find this connection to be strained, and less plausible than my own.

> Personally, I think
> The Unmerciful Servant would have been better placed
> by John after his 6:1-15 than by Matthew after his
> 18:21-22.

Why would you connect it with the Feeding of the 5,000 (a story that
is also found in Matthew 14, not to mention the other Synoptics)?

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

--- In crosstalk2@y..., "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@h...> wrote:
>Isn't there some anachronism here?  In the 1st century there were
>no "Jews," only Judaeans (Aram yehuddaya; Heb yehudym, Grk ioudaiwn)
>who, like those in the diaspora were Hebrews (Aram ebraya, Heb
>ibrym, Grk hEbraiwn).  "Judeans" is an English rendering of an
>ancient word. "Jews" is a word that only goes back to middle English.
>
> Jack

Perhaps if I heard scholars lobbying to change Josephus' titles
to "Antiquity of the Judaeans" and "Judaean Wars", then I might be
convinced that this change is meritted in the NT as well.  In the
meantime I still believe that the word "Jews" is preferable, and more
generally accurate for both.

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada