Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Early Beliefs

Expand Messages
  • Dennis Goffin
    Like Ron, I fail to see how the imprecations in Mt. 11: 23/4 can possibly be applied any Galilean ekklesia. This is in any case a collective noun applied to
    Message 1 of 33 , Mar 14, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Like Ron, I fail to see how the imprecations in Mt. 11: 23/4 can possibly be applied any Galilean ekklesia. This is in any case a collective noun applied to the totality of the followers of the Way and as such does not necessarily involve any bricks and mortar. As I understand it, the followers of the Way continued to attend the Synagogues until the end of the century and therefore to be regarded as only slightly deviant Jews whose beliefs were no more astray than those of the Sadducees and Essenes.
      On a pernickety note, Bethsaida is not in Galilee but in Gaulanitis in the Tetrarchy of Philip.
      Dennis Goffin







      ---- Original Message -----
      From: Ron Price
      To: Synoptic-L elist
      Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 9:50 AM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Early Beliefs



      Bruce Brooks wrote:

      > ..... The lull in
      > persecution after the conversion of Paul is thus noted in Acts 9:31,
      > "So the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee [sic] and Samaria had
      > peace and was built up, and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the
      > comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied." That was quite possibly
      > an inadvertence on the part of the author of Acts, but not the less
      > valuable so.
      >
      > Notice the word "church" and the word "Galilee."

      Bruce,

      Even taken at face value, this does not constitute evidence that Paul had
      persecuted anyone in Galilee.

      But I don't take it at face value. It is much too stereotyped and clearly
      designed to further Luke's presentational aims. So it cannot be relied upon
      as historical evidence. Furthermore this reference to the church in " ...
      Galilee ..." is the only NT reference to Christianity in Galilee, and is
      thus especially dubious.

      >> Need I remind you that there were no "churches" prior to the
      >> crucifixion?

      > ..... "churches" is perhaps a tricky word.

      I take a (local) church to be a group of Christians.
      Jesus and his immediate followers were Jews.

      > ..... Christianity was not first propagated from Jerusalem,

      Indeed it wasn't. The first recognizably "Christian" preaching was by Paul.

      > it was first propagated (by Jesus and others) from Galilee.

      What Jesus and his first followers preached was a strand of Judaism, as is
      indicated, for instance, by the scathing response put into the mouth of
      Jesus in Mark 8:33 following Peter's declaration of Jesus as (only) the
      Messiah. Seen from a Christian point of view, the first disciples never got
      beyond Judaism. They continued to oppose the Christian gospel formulated by
      Paul. Hence Mark's persistent denigration of Peter and the family of Jesus.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: GPG Cc: Synoptic In Response To: Keith Yoder On: Mark and John From: Bruce Thanks to Keith for his additional notes on recasting of previous tradition in
      Message 33 of 33 , Mar 24, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        To: GPG
        Cc: Synoptic
        In Response To: Keith Yoder
        On: Mark and John
        From: Bruce

        Thanks to Keith for his additional notes on recasting of previous
        tradition in John. The subject is a large one, with its own special
        interest, and all points are welcome.

        One of the skills needed by the successful churchman is the grace to
        respond politely when presented with a Festschrift which is small,
        undistinguished, and full of internal rancor, one author using his
        space to trash the opinion of another author about the date and
        authenticity of 1 Peter. Such was the crisis which must have
        confronted the dedicatee when he was handed Sherman E Johnson, The Joy
        of Study: Papers on New Testament and Related Subjects Presented to
        Honor Frederick Clifton Grant (Macmillan 1951).

        Fred his my sympathy in that moment.

        Nevertheless, there are some shreds of interest in the thing. One is
        the paper by Sydney Temple (University of Massachusetts, no less) on
        Geography and Climate in the Fourth Gospel. He makes what looks to me
        like a good case that the author of John knew Palestinian geography
        and its seasons very well: when a certain ford was passable, when the
        court migrated from Jerusalem to Jericho, when the high road through
        Samaria would have been preferable to the more obvious lowland one.

        Does this mean that John, being more cogent about geography than it
        seems Mark always was, knew Palestine, and Mark did not? That might be
        a rash conclusion. But with Temple's data in mind, we can at least say
        that he had done his homework, not only on the calendar, but on the
        ground.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.