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

The temple incident of Mk 11:15-17

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    Until recently I had always thought that there must be some historical event behind this story, if only in order to explain the arrest of Jesus. Now I am not
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 22, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Until recently I had always thought that there must be some historical event
      behind this story, if only in order to explain the arrest of Jesus. Now I am
      not so sure. The messianic enthusiasm of Jesus and his followers (especially
      in a Jerusalem crowded with festival visitors) was probably enough to get
      Jesus arrested.

      Problems with the story include:
      (1) at festivals, money changers were essential to the sacrificial cult
      (2) the references to Gentiles in synoptic aphorisms Mk 10:42; Mt 5:47; 6:7;
      6:32; 10:5 indicate that the historical Jesus was not overly concerned with
      "all the nations" (v.17)
      (3) Mark had a clear incentive to compose such a story because he *was*
      concerned for a gospel to Gentiles, and because the control of the temple
      was in the hands of a priestly group and thus the temple incident provided
      his passion story with a plausible excuse to involve the Jewish leaders
      (v.18) in the arrest and trial of Jesus.

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/hist_life.html


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dennis Goffin
      Ron, I think there was an actual event behind the story, but in my view it was only a symbolic, prophetic gesture on the part of Jesus, but which would
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 22, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron, I think there was an actual event behind the story, but in my view it was only a symbolic, prophetic gesture on the part of Jesus, but which would still have drawn him to the attention of the Jewish establishment as a potential troublemaker. The Court of the Gentiles was an enormous space. At the prescribed feasts when observant Jews were present in their hundreds and were served by dozens of authorized traders the place would have been crammed to the gills. All that Jesus could have done without getting himself lynched by angry participants intent on fulfilling their Torah duties, is to have made a symbolic prophetic gesture, and that in my book is all he did do, but it was enough to put him on a 'watch' list, and because the Romans regarded Messianic movements as insurrectionary, as witness Josephus, and for the Jews ,would endanger the oligarchic status quo, the realpolitik decision quoted in John 11:47-53 was taken to arrest him on a charge of blasphemy and then hand him over to the Romans for execution for sedition, for having been hailed by the people as a Messianic king of Israel.
        Dennis
        Dennis GoffinChorleywood UK


        To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
        From: ron-price@...
        Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:07:13 +0000
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] The temple incident of Mk 11:15-17




























        Until recently I had always thought that there must be some historical event

        behind this story, if only in order to explain the arrest of Jesus. Now I am

        not so sure. The messianic enthusiasm of Jesus and his followers (especially

        in a Jerusalem crowded with festival visitors) was probably enough to get

        Jesus arrested.



        Problems with the story include:

        (1) at festivals, money changers were essential to the sacrificial cult

        (2) the references to Gentiles in synoptic aphorisms Mk 10:42; Mt 5:47; 6:7;

        6:32; 10:5 indicate that the historical Jesus was not overly concerned with

        "all the nations" (v.17)

        (3) Mark had a clear incentive to compose such a story because he *was*

        concerned for a gospel to Gentiles, and because the control of the temple

        was in the hands of a priestly group and thus the temple incident provided

        his passion story with a plausible excuse to involve the Jewish leaders

        (v.18) in the arrest and trial of Jesus.



        Ron Price,



        Derbyshire, UK



        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/hist_life.html



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



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron Price On: Mk 11:15-17 From: Bruce I share Ron s previous feeling about this piece. It is too embarrassing, and more precisely,
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 24, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Ron Price
          On: Mk 11:15-17
          From: Bruce

          I share Ron's previous feeling about this piece. It is too embarrassing, and
          more precisely, it is too Davidic in tendency, to have been a pious later
          invention.

          RON: The messianic enthusiasm of Jesus and his followers (especially in a
          Jerusalem crowded with festival visitors) was probably enough to get Jesus
          arrested.

          BRUCE: Except that, according to Mark, whose evidence we are here following,
          it didn't. There was this additional provocation. And even that he got away
          with; the Temple authorities had to find someone to rat him out, before they
          could send a mob to arrest him. Does anyone doubt the story of the betrayal?
          I didn't think so. The next question is, Why was Jesus so hard to find?

          RON: Problems with the story include: (1) at festivals, money changers were
          essential to the sacrificial cult

          BRUCE: Way I heard it, they were essential to the Temple tax. But what
          counts is not our opinion, but that of Mark's principals. What did Jesus say
          about this situation?

          RON: (2) the references to Gentiles in synoptic aphorisms Mk 10:42; Mt 5:47;
          6:7; 6:32; 10:5 indicate that the historical Jesus was not overly concerned
          with "all the nations" (v.17)

          BRUCE: Not concerned at all. True, a later layer of Mark does symbolically
          include the Gentiles, but that's a later layer. A later layer cannot
          eliminate the evidence of an earlier layer. Late testimony cannot stand
          before earlier testimony. The historical Jesus's lack of concern with
          Gentiles is consistent with his lack of concern for the profits of the
          Temple vendors, if you come right down to it.

          Whose side was Jesus exactly on? That is a question that might be worth
          asking. For hints, I would still be inclined to turn to Mark, though going
          light on the interpolated passages, and sticking with the firmly situated
          ones.

          RON: (3) Mark had a clear incentive to compose such a story because he *was*
          concerned for a gospel to Gentiles, and because the control of the temple
          was in the hands of a priestly group and thus the temple incident provided
          his passion story with a plausible excuse to involve the Jewish leaders
          (v.18) in the arrest and trial of Jesus.

          BRUCE: Arrest, not trial, especially if we take note of Adela Yarbro
          Collins' reconstruction. And how concerned was Mark for the Gentiles? I have
          mentioned some later additions to his Gospel. I think that will cover it.
          Mark was a later convert to a lot of things, up to and including Paul's
          Atonement doctrine (at Mk 10:45 and 14:24, but not elsewhere). But that is
          merely to say that the Markan Gospel is a sort of stratificational cross
          section of the progress of church doctrine over the course of its writing
          life, which I calculate to be about 15 years. Mark, who was little more than
          a kid when Jesus came along, essentially grew up along with early
          Christianity (most likely, its Jerusalem version). And his book, almost a
          diary, shows it. It is an invaluable historical pageant, but not a safe
          historical snapshot.

          Back to the main point, just how would Mark's "clear incentive" (in favor of
          the Gentiles) lead him to invent the Money Changers story? How do we get
          from the one place to the other?

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • Ronald Price
          BRUCE: [the temple incident] is too embarrassing ..... RON: Like the baptism of Jesus by John, this incident (whether fact or fiction) was not too embarrassing
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 24, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            BRUCE: [the temple incident] is too embarrassing .....

            RON: Like the baptism of Jesus by John, this incident (whether fact or
            fiction) was not too embarrassing for Mark or he would not have included it
            in his gospel without any sign of embarrassment.

            - - - - - - - - - -

            BRUCE: ..... the Temple authorities had to find someone to rat him out,
            before they could send a mob to arrest him. Does anyone doubt the story of
            the betrayal?
            I didn't think so.

            RON: You are wrong. For instance, Hyam Maccoby and Aaron Saari doubted it,
            and so do I. The story of the betrayal is part of Mark's fictional
            anti-Jewish polemic.

            - - - - - - - - - -

            BRUCE: ..... just how would Mark's "clear incentive" (in favor of
            the Gentiles) lead him to invent the Money Changers story? How do we get
            from the one place to the other?

            RON: Mark's primary aim was to further the gospel to the Gentiles. Jews were
            especially despised after the fall of Jerusalem and the public parading of
            the temple treasures. Therefore Mark wanted the ruling authorities in the
            empire to make a clear distinction between Jews and Christians. What better
            way to do this in his new gospel than to paint the 'Jews' as enemies of
            Jesus? Just one minor problem: Jesus had been a loyal Jew. Consequently the
            enterprise required an elaborate plot. Mark would prepare for the passion
            story by composing an incident in which Jesus antagonizes the temple
            authorities. This would lead to his arrest, then trial and condemnation by
            chief priests. So the priests (Jews!) can be blamed for his death.

            - - - - - - - - - -

            Ron Price,

            Derbyshire, UK

            http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: Synoptic Disputing Points With: Ron At: Mk 11:15-17 and related From: Bruce THE JUDAS BETRAYAL BRUCE: ..... the Temple authorities had to find someone to
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 24, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Synoptic
              Disputing Points With: Ron
              At: Mk 11:15-17 and related
              From: Bruce

              THE JUDAS BETRAYAL

              BRUCE: ..... the Temple authorities had to find someone to rat [Jesus] out,
              before they could send a mob to arrest him. Does anyone doubt the story of
              the betrayal? . . . I didn't think so.

              RON: You are wrong. For instance, Hyam Maccoby and Aaron Saari doubted it,
              and so do I. The story of the betrayal is part of Mark's fictional
              anti-Jewish polemic.

              BRUCE: Well, that would still seem to add up to an overwhelming majority
              against the idea that Judas was wholly an invention of Mark, but my civics
              teacher warned me that the majority are always wrong, so let's consider it.
              I would propose to undertake the consideration by asking these questions:
              (1) Does the detail of Judas really play into a supposed Anti-Jewish agenda
              of Mark, and (2) is there any outside evidence for its reality, as against
              its invention by Mark? I would think, No and Yes, respectively.

              Judas. I can see Mark inventing a Jewish arrest of Jesus, as a way of
              incriminating the Jews and exonerating the Romans in the death of Jesus. So
              the Gethsemane arrest scene, minus Judas (Mark doesn't need to tell us how
              the mob found Jesus), would fit the supposed Mark agenda. It makes Jesus
              look innocent, and it makes the Jews look hostile. But what about the Judas
              detail? Does it speak ill for the Temple Jews? I would think it rather puts
              Jesus in a very bad light. Here is a guy who Jesus chose to be his apostle,
              and sent out and welcomed back in that role, but also WHO WAS GOING TO
              BETRAY HIM, but Jesus at that time had not the slightest clue about it. It
              is only moments before the betrayal that Jesus begins to sense something
              wrong. How prescient is Jesus anyway? Does his late prediction of betrayal
              really redeem his earlier ignorance of that same betrayal? Not to my eye. If
              I were Mark, and some scriptwriter in the Anti-Jewish section came to me
              with a proposal to invent a disciple betrayal, I would say, It adds drama
              but it also casts Jesus in a very bad light, as not only passive, but
              stupid. , I think you guys need to get back to the drawing board with this.

              Reality. If Judas were simply Mark's invention, we would expect him to be
              confined to Mark, or at most to those unimaginative imitators, the later
              Gospel writers, who were (let's generously assume) slavishly indebted to
              Mark and never used their own minds, or accessed other information sources.
              OK, I am willing to think that of Matthew, Luke, and John, who progressively
              strengthen the awfulness of the betrayal story, and think up new and
              gruesome ways for Judas to die. But as an independent test of that
              hypothesis, does Judas exist outside the Mark-defined Gospel tradition, or
              is he more widely recognized? Answer: He is more widely recognized. Among
              the Apostolic writings, we find Judas tending to figure in the Harrowing of
              Hell narratives, as the only (or one of two or three) unredeemable souls
              left in Hell forever, after everyone else is freed. That's one strike
              against the Mark invention theory, and the strike consists in the fact that
              everyone out there in noncanonical waters, who takes any stand at all,
              agrees with Mark. Closer in to the Orthdoxy wharf, we have Paul, and does
              Paul refer, a propos Eucharist, to the "night on which Jesus was arrested?
              No, he refers, and I quote, to the "night on which he was betrayed." Sic.

              Third. To return to the first point, and reconsider the assumption there
              made, I don't find that the later Gospelers were in fact utterly confined to
              Mark. Luke, for example, feels perfectly free to drop the passages in which
              Mark flirts with the Atonement doctrine (a tenet which Luke obviously would
              not accept), he leaves out some Mark stories, including Jesus preaching
              segments (which one might think obsequious piety would compel him to
              retain), and he heavily rewrites others. If Mark were merely inventing, and
              if Luke, who was working not as a tourist but from within Christian
              tradition, and so may have had his own impressions of Christian tradition,
              had construed something in Mark as a mere invention, it was in principle
              open to him (and in his own practice, evidently available to him) to leave
              that unsound detail out, while keeping other things in. This is not how he
              treats the Judas betrayal. That he not only keeps it, but literarily
              elaborates it, would seem to be evidence for something more than a passive
              or perfunctory or sullen acceptance.

              All together, the tests that we can practicably apply to the Judas betrayal
              seem to suggest that it rested on ground outside Mark, and thus was not
              merely a Markan figment.

              -----------------------

              THE MONEY CHANGERS

              BRUCE (before): ..... just how would Mark's "clear incentive" (in favor of
              the Gentiles) lead him to invent the Money Changers story? How do we get
              from the one place to the other?

              RON: Mark's primary aim was to further the gospel to the Gentiles.

              BRUCE: I don't know about primary. How much of Mark can fairly be assigned,
              on its own showing, to this purpose? I have noted that there are passages
              that have the Gentiles in mind, but I have also noted that they tend to be
              interpolations. (The same is true of Luke, by the way). I think we need to
              judge between stuff and other stuff in these texts. It is not all equally up
              for grabs by the modern investigator.

              RON: . . . Jews were especially despised after the fall of Jerusalem and the
              public parading of the temple treasures.

              BRUCE: By whom more than before? The parading was in Rome. The loss of the
              Temple vessels would have been disabling for the Temple proprietors, back in
              Jerusalem, and of course it made a drastic change in the place of sacrifice
              in Jewish religious life generally (it reduced it to zero). But "despised?"

              RON: . . . Therefore Mark wanted the ruling authorities in the empire to
              make a clear distinction between Jews and Christians.

              BRUCE: Yes and no. All the NT texts go to extreme lengths, including
              narrative distortions (in case the other side, the Roman side, was
              listening, and for those writing in Greek, that was surely a consideration)
              to show that Romans always judged the Christians to be without fault,
              whether theological (that they left to the Jews to arbitrate) or civil (the
              key issue). No "despising of Jews" is logically involved, nor is it
              narratively linked in any NT text that I can think of offhand. As for
              distinction, is not the opposite the case? Rather, one desideratum for any
              early Christian author was to secure for Christians a protected status as
              Jews under Roman rule. Making a distinction between Jews and Christians
              would have entailed serious legal disabilities, no?

              The wish of Christians to appear harmless to Romans is conspicuously
              manifest as late as Acts (post-70). The freeing of Pilate from guilt for
              Jesus' death (presumed by Christians to be an injustice) is something that
              is continually developed in later texts, up to the point of giving Pilate
              saintly status within Christianity. The reciprocal of that development is to
              dump the guilt for the whole proceeding increasingly on the Jews, a ready
              target because (as Mark makes endlessly plain) they had long been hostile to
              Jesus, and were already involved in the Jerusalem arrest and execution. That
              does not mean that the Jews in real life had had no complicity in Jesus's
              arrest and death; it merely means that such real life beginning as that
              motif had, was subject to further hostile elaboration in successive Gospels
              (and for that matter, in later layers of Mark himself). If we trace this
              stream of anti-Temple propaganda back to its source, do we get nothing at
              all, or do we get a more modest historical fact? I think we get the latter.
              Note, in any case, that the Temple Establishment are not equivalent to
              "Jews." The latter term is far wider. Jesus, at most points in Mark
              including his preaching in the Temple vicinity, seems to have been on terms
              of acceptance and even enthusiasm with the Jewish populace at large. Or if
              not, Mark is surely behaving very irrationally in his supposed attempt to
              show the opposite.

              RON: What better way to do this in his new gospel than to paint the 'Jews'
              as enemies of Jesus? Just one minor problem: Jesus had been a loyal Jew.

              BRUCE: I can only call this another illusion. Mark makes it plain that
              Jesus, both ritually and politically, was a divergent Jew and also a
              politically dangerous Jew, since his teaching threatened the Quisling
              Jerusalem establishment Jews with loss of their safe and profitable status
              quo, the status in which they had the most interest. To what was Jesus (in
              Mark) loyal? To Moses? He disputes divorce law with Moses. To John the B?
              His own preaching takes a different tack, including the abandonment of
              baptism as a ritual. To the Pharisee elaborations of the Mosaic Law? A dozen
              or so confrontations in Mark say the opposite. I don't find a footing
              anywhere in Mark for the "loyal Jew" position. (Matthew offers some crumbs
              in this direction, but we are not now discussing Matthew). Jesus, on Mark's
              showing, was dedicated to a certain version of the Davidic vision for
              Israel. Both his enemies and his enthusiastic hearers characterize him as
              new, startling, and either convincing or upsetting, depending on previous
              condition of servitude. I sense a salient rather than a conventional
              persona. The opposite of blah.

              RON: Consequently the enterprise required an elaborate plot. Mark would
              prepare for the passion story by composing an incident in which Jesus
              antagonizes the temple authorities. This would lead to his arrest, then
              trial and condemnation by chief priests. So the priests (Jews!) can be
              blamed for his death.

              BRUCE: Again, I think the guys in the PR division, the Markan Lie Staff,
              need to rethink this. If Jesus (as would be nice, if true) was in fact
              innocent of political intentions, a kindly rural preacher of Qwisdom, and if
              the whole arrest and execution story in Mark is one vast bad rap, invented
              in its entirety by Mark, it would seem that Mark's best strategy for that
              invention was to portray a Jesus innocent of Messianic pretensions (he does
              the opposite) and one whose own civil behavior is exemplary (instead, he
              shows Jesus upsetting things in the Temple precincts). Try as I can (and I
              have repeatedly revisited these parts of Mark), there does not seem to be a
              case of mistaken identity here, no bad rap, no slanderous defamation of a
              loyal Roman subject and conventionally pious Jew. Mark says otherwise. Mark
              is at pains to tell a story which does not make sense as merely an attempt
              to blame Jews for Jesus's death. On the contrary, he gives ample reasons,
              from the beginning of his story to the end, and not only in the final
              chapters, why both Romans and Jews would have wanted to put Jesus to death.
              Over the whole of his text, Mark provides a consistent and coherent scenario
              for why Jesus died. (James Hardy Ropes and I think that this was the
              original reason for Mark's writing a Gospel at all).

              In short, I cannot but think that this whole series of assumptions is weak
              at the joints, and questionable at the nodes, and needs general rethinking.

              Respectfully suggested.

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            • Ronald Price
              BRUCE: ..... does Judas exist outside the Mark-defined Gospel tradition, or is he more widely recognized? Answer: He is more widely recognized. RON: Our only
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 25, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                BRUCE: ..... does Judas exist outside the Mark-defined Gospel tradition, or
                is he more widely recognized? Answer: He is more widely recognized.

                RON: Our only independent source for the story of the betrayal of Jesus is
                Mark's gospel. The fact that millions since have believed it should make no
                difference whatsoever to the critical historian. For from the late 1st
                century to modern times, all have been dependent directly or indirectly on
                the testimony of Mark.

                BRUCE: ..... does Paul refer, a propos Eucharist, to the "night on which
                Jesus was arrested? No, he refers, and I quote, to the "night on which he
                was betrayed." Sic.

                RON: Paul did not use the word "betray". He wrote in Greek, and the word he
                used was PARADIDWMI. This word does not necessarily imply betrayal. For
                instance, it was used in Mk 1:14 to refer to the "arrest" (RSV) of John the
                Baptist. Therefore 1 Cor 11:23 cannot be used to prove that Paul knew the
                story of the betrayal of Jesus.

                Unfortunately many translators of this verse have also been influenced by
                the Markan story of the betrayal. Commendable exceptions are NEB and REB
                which read: "... on the night of his arrest ...".

                Ron Price,

                Derbyshire, UK

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



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • E Bruce Brooks
                To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron On: Betrayal From: Bruce The question was whether anyone outside the Markan Text Tradition speaks of Judas as betraying Jesus.
                Message 7 of 9 , Jan 25, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  To: Synoptic
                  In Response To: Ron
                  On: Betrayal
                  From: Bruce

                  The question was whether anyone outside the Markan Text Tradition speaks of
                  Judas as betraying Jesus. I had cited Paul.

                  RON: Paul did not use the word "betray". He wrote in Greek, and the word he
                  used was PARADIDWMI. This word does not necessarily imply betrayal. For
                  instance, it was used in Mk 1:14 to refer to the "arrest" (RSV) of John the
                  Baptist. Therefore 1 Cor 11:23 cannot be used to prove that Paul knew the
                  story of the betrayal of Jesus.

                  BRUCE: Strong 3860. The word basically means "hand on" (in the sense of
                  transmit; saepe, eg 1Cor 11:2, Rom 6:17, Ac 6:14 of Mosaic tradition) or
                  "hand over" (deliver to the authorities; also saepe, eg Mk 27:2, of the
                  Sanhedrin to Pilate). If the latter sense occurs not from one legal entity
                  to another, but from a presumably closely knit group, eg a family, to an
                  official and hostile group, like the Roman or Jewish authorities, then the
                  sense of "betrayal" appears, and in the NT, such handovers are typically
                  taken as a violation of expectation, not routine procedure but breaking of
                  trust. So the various Apocalyptic predictions, that family members will
                  denounce each other to the forces of law, which repeatedly use this same
                  word. The same word is used in Mk, repeatedly, of the specific betrayal of
                  Judas. I would think that the nuance of "betrayal" is fully available for
                  this word, both in Judas contexts and otherwise, and that Paul, in using
                  Mark's word, is also, on mere lexical grounds, liable to be interpreted in
                  the sense which Mark gives it.

                  JUDAS

                  Ron's citation of people who besides himself believe in the unhistoricity of
                  Judas left me puzzled, since I had never heard of them, so I went to look
                  them up. Hyam Maccoby was an interesting case. He agrees with me at many
                  points as to what actually happened in Jerusalem, so I don't want to say
                  anything really bad about him. But his primary agenda, as with many other
                  generous-minded Jews of recent centuries, is to deal with anti-Semitism (so
                  also Shelby Spong, whom Ron might have added to his list). Maccoby's plan is
                  to show that Christian hatred for Jews is really a Pauline invention, a
                  false Christianity that has obscured the real (and benevolent) Christianity,
                  which for Maccoby is the Sermon on the Mount. That is, Christian hatred of
                  Jews is a sort of Christian aberration, the following of a wrong path, and
                  can be eliminated by going back and taking the right path; they can stay
                  Christians, but they will no longer feel any historical need to hate Jews.
                  One major problem with this tactic is Judas, around whom, and in whose name,
                  so much of the hatred seems to cluster, in both ancient and modern times.
                  If, then, Judas can also be shown to be a figment, a historical mistake,
                  then the road to Jewish/Christian amity is made that much smoother. So, I
                  imagine, goes the thinking.

                  The cause is doubtless noble; if in addition, the hatred of Christians for
                  other Christians (and here again Paul seems to figure prominently, not to
                  mention his successors the deuteroPauline writers) could be somehow dealt
                  with, and made to evaporate, the world (both past and present) would
                  presumably be a nicer place. I am all for niceness, and recommend it for the
                  future. But I think the attempt to impose niceness on the past is
                  unsuccessful.

                  In the end, Maccoby's recommendations are based on the Nice Jesus, the
                  Matthean Sermon Jesus, like those of so many at the present time. But as to
                  the Judas part of the past, he is rewriting it to suit his wish for the
                  present, and I can't in good conscience assent to it.

                  Such wishes, and such means of turning history to support them, are standard
                  issue with traditions and their opponents. The classical Chinese did exactly
                  the same thing, inventing false ancient documents to show that the ancients
                  denounced oppression and favored democratic consensus, insisted on due
                  process and reduced mutilating punishments, making the law itself less
                  oppressive; a blessing and not a curse, as one of them put it. Their picture
                  of antiquity, and their implicit recommendation for the rulers of their own
                  time, deserves all sympathy, but those working on the actual history of
                  early law - and they are herewith invited to attend my presentation at AOS
                  this coming March - will do better not to credit these documents as
                  reflecting actual history. To portray hatred as some sort of limited heresy,
                  a departure from the otherwise universal experience and practice of
                  humankind, does not do full justice to humankind.

                  I think Maccoby's politics have at this point colored his otherwise
                  suggestive reading of the documents, and recommend that he not be followed
                  in this detail. Some of his other suggestions seem better grounded; I
                  recommend they be carefully weighed, and in these matters, I now consider
                  myself Maccoby's disciple.

                  Bruce

                  E Bruce Brooks
                  University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                • Ken Olson
                  BRUCE: The same word is used in Mk, repeatedly, of the specific betrayal of Judas. I would think that the nuance of betrayal is fully available for this
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jan 25, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    BRUCE: >>The same word is used in Mk, repeatedly, of the specific betrayal of

                    Judas. I would think that the nuance of "betrayal" is fully available for

                    this word, both in Judas contexts and otherwise, and that Paul, in using

                    Mark's word, is also, on mere lexical grounds, liable to be interpreted in

                    the sense which Mark gives it.<<
                    I should think we might give first consideration to the sense in which Paul himself uses the word when writing of Jesus being "given up", e.g. Romans 8:32: "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all" (cf. Rom. 4.25, Gal. 2.20).

                    Best,
                    Ken
                    Ken OlsonPhD CandidateReligion
                    Duke University




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Jgibson
                    ... Let me get this straight: You use Strongs (which is NOT, despite what it labels itself to be, a Lexicon, but a notation of what the KJV translators
                    Message 9 of 9 , Jan 25, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 1/25/2012 11:36 AM, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
                      >
                      > BRUCE: Strong 3860. The word basically means "hand on" (in the sense of
                      > transmit; saepe, eg 1Cor 11:2, Rom 6:17, Ac 6:14 of Mosaic tradition) or
                      > "hand over" (deliver to the authorities; also saepe, eg Mk 27:2, of the
                      > Sanhedrin to Pilate).

                      Let me get this straight: You use Strongs (which is NOT, despite what
                      it labels itself to be, a Lexicon, but a notation of what the KJV
                      translators thought was the best English equivalent for a Greek word in
                      a particular passage) as your guide to the "basic sense" (good god!)
                      and the semantic range of Greek words ion first century writings????

                      Jeffrey

                      --
                      ---
                      Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.
                      1500 W. Pratt Blvd
                      Chicago, Il.
                      jgibson000@...
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.