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

RE: [Synoptic-L] The temple incident of Mk 11:15-17

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.