Re: [Synoptic-L] Early Beliefs
- To: Bruce and Ron
Bruce says: No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from .the old, and a worse tear is made" (Mk 2:18). And so on.This amounts to a statement that Jesus's doctrines are not only
distinctive within previous Judaism, they are incompatible with previous Judaism.
Brandon says "Jesus is represented as pronouncing on the obsolescence of Judaism. The attempt made by Jewish Christians to adapt Christianity to Judaism was hopeless - new wine cannot be held in old wine skins. The ruin of the temple in AD70 ( of which the Roman Christians were well aware from the triumph held by Vespasian and Titus in AD71) had ended the compromise which the Jerusalem Christians had sought to maintain, and now Christianity was free of its Judaistic swaddling bands."
[ Page 266 in the chapter 'The Markan Gospel' from "Jesus and the Zealots".] Brandon dates Mark's Gospel to 71 AD.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Price
To: Synoptic-L elist
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Early Beliefs
Bruce Brooks wrote:
> What other view of Luke's purposes makes this "Galilee" reference
> [ Ac 9:31 ]
> either "stereotyped" or "designed to further his presentational aims?"
It's the whole verse which is stereotyped, not just the reference to
Galilee. The aim was to present a picture of the significant progress of the
> ..... I will rephrase my
> statement, or rather that of Ac 9:31, as follows: "So the Jesuite
> groups throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and
> were built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort
> of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied."
> Now then, which of these geographical sets of Jesuite groups is Paul
> most likely to have personally beset?
You're trying to read too much into what Luedemann calls "This obviously
> Mk 1:27 "What is this? A new teaching!"
> And if we dispense with the Markan reports of the crowds, here is his
> report of Jesus talking: "No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an
> old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from
> the old, and a worse tear is made" (Mk 2:18). And so on.
> This amounts to a statement that Jesus's doctrines are not only
> distinctive within previous Judaism, they are incompatible with
> previous Judaism.
Mark is trying to walk on a tightrope. Here he wants to make out that the
message of Jesus was incompatible with Judaism and that Jesus saw the need
to break away from it (though actually he didn't do so). Later he disparages
Jesus' first followers for sticking to Judaism. These two positions are
inconsistent. It was Mark who wanted Christians to make a clean break from
Judaism, and it plainly didn't worry him if history was distorted in the
process. (Though of course Christianity is not the only religion the details
of whose origins are difficult to ascertain because the contemporary records
cannot be taken at face value.)
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- To: GPG
In Response To: Keith Yoder
On: Mark and John
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
E Bruce Brooks
Warring States Project
University of Massachusetts