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

On the 3ST

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    [Third try] To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron On: 3ST From: Bruce Thanks to Ron for his prompt and detailed responses; I will have a slow look at them, and
    Message 1 of 11 , Dec 9, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      [Third try]

      To: Synoptic
      In Response To: Ron
      On: 3ST
      From: Bruce

      Thanks to Ron for his prompt and detailed responses; I will have a slow look
      at them, and perhaps a question or two later on. Meanwhile, I am still
      trying to get a general sense of the theory. Here is just one point that
      occurred to me.

      RON [before]: Matthew translated almost all of the logia.

      BRUCE [before; trying to envision the theory]: Other parts of the sayings
      source are unused by Matthew, and remain only in the original source.

      RON [before, answering this]: But Luke translated most of the logia, and
      Mark about half of it. Thus the synoptic writers between them translated
      virtually all of it.

      BRUCE [present tense]: My first instinctive reaction is that the theory is
      permissive and schematic, and that it raises doubts if we imagine it
      happening in real time. Thus:

      We are supposing a now lost source, call it A, which was physically known to
      all three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Together, and without
      collusion, they incorporated virtually all of it, so that this A Gospel can
      in principle be reconstituted from its diffused presence in the Synoptics.

      Doesn't this require that the Synoptics were all written within a rather
      narrow geographical and chronological window? The further apart the
      Synoptics are in space, the wider the physical distribution of A must have
      been, and the further apart they are in time, the longer we must assume
      copies of A to have remained physically available to any future Evangelist.
      The idea has its attractions on paper, as a diagram of Synoptic
      relationships. But does it work on the ground?

      QUESTIONS

      (1) The further we go in either of the above directions, as it seems to me,
      the more difficult becomes the fact that the text is now lost. If it lasted
      past the composition of Mark and into the composition of Luke, why is A
      itself not now canonical? How does the 3ST deal with these seeming
      difficulties of scenario?

      (2) Or separately: Are there any editorial remarks in any of the Synoptics
      which might be interpreted as pointing directly to the existence of A, or to
      its incorporation at that particular point?

      (3) Finally, since Ron has presumably spent more time in the company of A
      than any of the rest of us: What is the theology of A?

      Just curious,

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Ron Price
      ... Bruce, Papias statement about the logia implied that it was never translated into Greek. There are at least three reasons why it was never canonical.
      Message 2 of 11 , Dec 10, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce Brooks wrote:

        > QUESTIONS
        >
        > (1) The further we go in either of the above directions, as it seems to me,
        > the more difficult becomes the fact that the text is now lost. If it lasted
        > past the composition of Mark and into the composition of Luke, why is A
        > itself not now canonical?

        Bruce,

        Papias' statement about the logia implied that it was never translated into
        Greek. There are at least three reasons why it was never canonical. Firstly
        it was an Aramaic document, whereas the gospels were all in Greek. Secondly
        it had virtually all been included somewhere or other in one or more of the
        synoptics so in a way it had become redundant. As a consequence of this:
        thirdly the Aramaic text had probably been lost by the time the canon came
        to be fixed.

        > (2) Or separately: Are there any editorial remarks in any of the Synoptics
        > which might be interpreted as pointing directly to the existence of A, or to
        > its incorporation at that particular point?

        The logia sayings appear to have been deliberately arranged into pairs.
        Partly for this reason I think Lk 10:1 was a subtle allusion to the logia.

        > (3) Finally, since Ron has presumably spent more time in the company of A
        > than any of the rest of us: What is the theology of A?

        It was what would be expected of the Jesus community in Jerusalem: belief in
        God is taken for granted; the format of the sayings implies Jesus is
        presented as a great teacher. The logia reflects the hope that the kingdom
        of God which was central to Jesus' teaching would be established soon with
        the dramatic coming of the Son of Man.

        > On slowly working my way through your list of 35 passages which reflect
        > source A,

        No. Only 12 of these common strings are from the logia (those marked 'sQ'),
        and they're mostly parts of sayings rather than full sayings.

        > ..... whether meditated by Matthew or used directly by Luke, I find that
        > one of them, namely 11:21 // 10:13 / xQ / 12, is duplicated on your list, so
        > that we actually have only 34 passages. Correct?

        No. There just happen to be two pairs of consecutive identical strings of
        words in Mt 11:21 // Lk 10:13.

        > In addition to these, if I understand you correctly, there are also some
        > passages in Mark which you regard as derived from A, some of them perhaps
        > also used by Matthew and/or Luke, but some unique to Mark. I infer that if
        > we had these A-based Markan passages also, we would have before us a
        > complete inventory of A insofar as it can now be recovered (according to the
        > 3ST) from extant texts. (And your opinion seems to be that, among them,
        > Mark, Matthew, and Luke made use of virtually all of A).
        >
        > Do you then have a list of those Mark passages?

        You will find the complete inventory of the logia with all the
        Mark/Matthew/Luke references in tabular form on the following page of my Web
        site:

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

        Ron Price

        Derbyshire, UK
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron On: Papias etc (ap 3ST) From: Bruce Still trying to figure this out. Thanks to Ron for his helpfulness at several points. This
        Message 3 of 11 , Dec 10, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Ron
          On: Papias etc (ap 3ST)
          From: Bruce

          Still trying to figure this out. Thanks to Ron for his helpfulness at
          several points. This is just a rumination about one point: the question of
          why the supposed A text did not survive.

          RON: Papias' statement about the logia implied that it was never translated
          into Greek.

          BRUCE: Unless you count Papias's statement about the three Synoptics. But I
          know what you mean.

          RON: There are at least three reasons why it was never canonical. Firstly it
          was an Aramaic document, whereas the gospels were all in Greek.

          BRUCE: Well, but even at the present time, I have the impression that
          seminary students learn Hebrew because half, and by far the larger half, of
          the relevant sacred texts are in that language. If *we* can have a
          linguistically mixed canon (and Matthew et al are certainly making energetic
          use of the earlier half of it), I am not sure why the old timers couldn't
          have. We see before our eyes that they didn't, but I am reluctant to say
          that this result was inevitable.

          RON: Secondly it had virtually all been included somewhere or other in one
          or more of the synoptics so in a way it had become redundant.

          BRUCE: Just like the Gospel of Mark, which is almost entire in Matthew, and
          still moreso in Matthew and Luke taken together. In other words, this is a
          good argument for the exclusion of Mark from the canon. Since it didn't keep
          Mark out of the canon, I am not sure that this factor, of itself, is
          efficacious either.

          RON: As a consequence of this: thirdly the Aramaic text had probably been
          lost by the time the canon came
          to be fixed.

          BRUCE: Canon fixing (including but probably not limited to the genuine
          Pauline epistles) probably began by the middle of the 1c, and was still
          fluid in the 4c (at which time Barnabas and Hermas were still included, at
          least for some people). We see the early Fathers, some little removed in
          date from Papias, arguing over what is authentic and what is not. Do we
          imagine that Papias actually saw the document which he describes as the
          logia? If there had been something still in existence as of 100, to be seen
          or talked about, something that was thought at least by some to be an early
          sayings collection (and its being in Aramaic would have given it all the
          more qualifications; according to Dave G, that was its raison d'ĂȘtre), I
          don't see why, a priori, it should have been neglected. I would not be
          surprised if, given that it existed and was known, it would have been held
          as authoritative at least for some locality of early Christianity.

          Hence this question: Where was this Aramaic document composed? Did it have,
          or might it have acquired, a Sitz im Leben?

          RON [answering another question, but cited here as relevant]: It was what
          would be expected of the Jesus community in Jerusalem: belief in God is
          taken for granted; the format of the sayings implies Jesus is presented as a
          great teacher. The logia reflects the hope that the kingdom of God which was
          central to Jesus' teaching would be established soon with the dramatic
          coming of the Son of Man.

          BRUCE: Again, I take the Jerusalem point, and see its attractiveness (to me,
          both Mt and Lk are Jerusalemizing documents). But how do you handle the
          Antioch suggestions that keep coming up? And as for the Jerusalem church,
          assuming that to be the best solution after all, have you coordinated your
          conclusions with the people who have written a Life of James [Jacob] in 1000
          pages? Does Jacob at any point behave as though he had heard of the logia,
          and regarded them as at all authoritative? If Mark is to be believed, he
          wasn't paying all that much attention during his brother's lifetime, and
          came around only afterward.

          Anyway, thanks again. I leave other points for later, and hope that others
          will address any of these points at their pleasure.

          Bruce
        • Ron Price
          ... RON: What proportion of Christians have studied Hebrew? I suggest it is a very small proportion. In practice the vast majority make use of translations, so
          Message 4 of 11 , Dec 11, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            > BRUCE: Well, but even at the present time, I have the impression that
            > seminary students learn Hebrew because half, and by far the larger half, of
            > the relevant sacred texts are in that language. If *we* can have a
            > linguistically mixed canon (and Matthew et al are certainly making energetic
            > use of the earlier half of it), I am not sure why the old timers couldn't
            > have. We see before our eyes that they didn't, but I am reluctant to say
            > that this result was inevitable.

            RON: What proportion of Christians have studied Hebrew? I suggest it is a
            very small proportion. In practice the vast majority make use of
            translations, so the multi-language canon is exists in theory, but not for
            most practical purposes. Only scholars like to go back to the originals. The
            NT canon included all of the logia sayings in some form in Greek translation
            so a multilingual canon would have been considered unnecessary if it had
            been considered at all.

            > BRUCE: Just like the Gospel of Mark, which is almost entire in Matthew, and
            > still moreso in Matthew and Luke taken together. In other words, this is a
            > good argument for the exclusion of Mark from the canon. Since it didn't keep
            > Mark out of the canon, I am not sure that this factor, of itself, is
            > efficacious either.

            RON: "of itself" is a key phrase. Your statement is reasonable when thus
            qualified. Yet there may have been a special attraction in having *four*
            gospels, like the supposed "four corners of the earth" (Rev 7:1; 20:8), and
            compare Irenaeus' comments (which I don't have to hand). Also my argument
            depends on the cumulative effect of three observations.

            > RON: As a consequence of this: thirdly the Aramaic text had probably been
            > lost by the time the canon came to be fixed.
            >
            > BRUCE: Canon fixing (including but probably not limited to the genuine
            > Pauline epistles) probably began by the middle of the 1c,

            RON: We're talking about the gospels here. None of them were even written in
            the middle of the 1st c.

            > BRUCE: ..... And as for the Jerusalem church,
            > assuming that to be the best solution after all, have you coordinated your
            > conclusions with the people who have written a Life of James [Jacob] in 1000
            > pages? Does Jacob at any point behave as though he had heard of the logia,
            > and regarded them as at all authoritative?

            RON: As it happens I do have a 1000-page book on James, though I can't claim
            to have read it all. The fact is that not much is reliably known about
            James, and so a lot of the space in this book is devoted to examining the
            stories which were related about him, and a lot to documents for which the
            argument depends crucially on highly controversial dating.
            The teaching of the logia in consistent with what little we do know about
            James. Especially significant is the opening sentence of the logia: "Blessed
            are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God", compare the undoubtedly
            authentic Gal 2:9-10: "... James and Cephas and John ... only they would
            have us remember the poor ...".

            > BRUCE: If Mark is to be believed, he
            > wasn't paying all that much attention during his brother's lifetime, and
            > came around only afterward.

            RON: I take Mark's uncomplimentary statements about James to be deliberate
            denigration and therefore not reliable historically.

            Ron Price

            Derbyshire, UK

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron On: James From: Bruce Not all the recent points can be pursued without getting into more detail than is probably appropriate
            Message 5 of 11 , Dec 11, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              To: Synoptic
              In Response To: Ron
              On: James
              From: Bruce

              Not all the recent points can be pursued without getting into more detail
              than is probably appropriate here, but I pick out the last one as perhaps
              having some interest beyond the present technical matters:

              RON: I take Mark's uncomplimentary statements about James to be deliberate
              denigration and therefore not reliable historically.

              BRUCE: I am inclined to find them convincing, and here is why.

              1. Mark puts Mary and her other sons in an oppositional light. All that is
              really said about them (collectively; Jacob does not appear as an
              individual) is that they thought Jesus was pursuing an inadvisable course.
              If Jesus had been my kid, let me tell you, I would have been worried too. I
              mean, look at it, there he goes, talking to demoniacs, and to hear him tell
              it, also to demons. Running around with John the Baptist, and look what
              happened to John the Baptist! And the facts, seen from a conventional
              viewpoint, would have proved me right to be concerned. What's so unnatural
              about the situation that Mark purports to report? I don't think it is
              inherently implausible.

              2. Nothing in the other Gospels or in Acts or in the NT as far as I can
              recall gives Jacob a role as a fan and adherent already in Jesus's lifetime.
              Everything positive that is said of him places him in the posthumous
              movement, and in Jerusalem, which was not exactly where the Jesus movement
              started. That is, however developed and elaborated the Jacob tradition may
              eventually have become, and even Jacob's fans admit that some of it may be a
              bit exaggerated, that tradition didn't develop so as to give Jacob a role
              outside of the second phase of the Jesus movement (or the third, if you
              count the lifetime ministry as the first). I find this reticence
              significant.

              3. Also, what does the legendary tradition of Jacob actually say about his
              beliefs? As I recall, that he was hyperpious, and in a specifically Temple
              variety of piety. That he wore out his knees demonstrating his hyperpiety in
              public. Where in the Gospels, or in any other credible source, is Jesus
              portrayed this way? Nowhere. Instead, his objections to the orthodox piety
              of his day, including its conspicuous public manifestations in during
              prayer, are magnified, made much of, given ample Gospel room, and made the
              reason, or at any rate the political reason, why Jesus met the end he did.
              Is this too to be ascribed to original or inherited Markan denigration? I
              can't think so.

              But if, against all this, we after all imagine Jacob to have been a believer
              and fellow worker already in the Galilee period, what would have been Mark's
              reason for saying otherwise?

              Bruce
            • Ron Price
              ... Bruce, What is so implausible is that Mark presents Peter as the leading follower of Jesus, yet it is clear from both Galatians and Acts that within 10
              Message 6 of 11 , Dec 11, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Bruce Brooks wrote:

                > ....... What's so unnatural about the situation that Mark purports to report?
                > I don't think it is inherently implausible.

                Bruce,

                What is so implausible is that Mark presents Peter as the leading follower
                of Jesus, yet it is clear from both Galatians and Acts that within 10 years
                of the crucifixion the undisputed leader was James.

                > ..... however developed and elaborated the Jacob tradition may
                > eventually have become, and even Jacob's fans admit that some of it may be a
                > bit exaggerated, that tradition didn't develop so as to give Jacob a role
                > outside of the second phase of the Jesus movement (or the third, if you
                > count the lifetime ministry as the first). I find this reticence
                > significant.

                I can't comment on this because I don't understand what you mean by "outside
                of the second phase".

                > 3. Also, what does the legendary tradition of Jacob actually say about his
                > beliefs? As I recall, that he was hyperpious, and in a specifically Temple
                > variety of piety. That he wore out his knees demonstrating his hyperpiety in
                > public. Where in the Gospels, or in any other credible source, is Jesus
                > portrayed this way? Nowhere. Instead, his objections to the orthodox piety
                > of his day, including its conspicuous public manifestations in during
                > prayer, are magnified, made much of, given ample Gospel room, and made the
                > reason, or at any rate the political reason, why Jesus met the end he did.
                > Is this too to be ascribed to original or inherited Markan denigration? I
                > can't think so.

                Again I don't follow you. In any case "legendary tradition" is irrelevant
                for those like me who are only interested in the history.

                > But if, against all this, we after all imagine Jacob to have been a believer
                > and fellow worker already in the Galilee period, what would have been Mark's
                > reason for saying otherwise?

                Because Mark promoted the gospel of Paul (which became Christianity) and
                James promoted a sect of Judaism (which sect eventually fizzled out).

                Ron Price

                Derbyshire, UK

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
              • E Bruce Brooks
                To: Synoptic In Response To: Various On: Jacob From: Bruce [Unlike most E-lists of which I have experience, Synoptic is set so that the REPLY button gets you
                Message 7 of 11 , Dec 11, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  To: Synoptic
                  In Response To: Various
                  On: Jacob
                  From: Bruce

                  [Unlike most E-lists of which I have experience, Synoptic is set so that the
                  REPLY button gets you the sender of that message, not the list as a whole;
                  with Synoptic you have to use REPLY ALL. Some responses meant for the list
                  get lost that way, evidently including the recent response of Lance Beard,
                  to which Ron Price replied at least in part, or none of us would have known
                  of it, since it did not reach Synoptic and was not distributed by Synoptic.
                  It seems to have only reached Ron. I keep getting tripped up in just this
                  way myself. Perhaps the list organizers might like to reconsider that
                  choice. / Bruce]

                  RON [to Lance, who had questioned the "denigration" criterion as applied to
                  Mark]: Let's consider a legal analogy. If witness A denigrates the character
                  of witness B, do you believe witness A? No fair-minded person would do so
                  without trying to find other evidence bearing on the case. And if there is
                  no other evidence, the fair-minded person would surely be forced to suspend
                  judgment, in other words, treat witness A's testimony as unreliable, that
                  is, the testimony cannot be relied upon to be true.

                  BRUCE: This amounts to the rule that only favorable testimony is inherently
                  credible. I find it neither personally prudent nor legally recognized. If
                  only positive testimony were acceptable before the bar, no criminal would
                  ever be convicted. There are things in this world that one cannot honestly
                  nicemouth. And do we allow Paul to denigrate himself, as he so frequently
                  does, both in Luke's descriptions and in his own writings? If so, then what
                  becomes of the rule which it is here proposed to apply to Mark's negative
                  testimony about Jacob? There may be specific objections to Mark on this
                  point, but I think that, as a general principle, the proposed rule cannot
                  possibly stand.

                  RON [here and below replying to me]: What is so implausible [about Mark's
                  portrayal of Jacob] is that Mark presents Peter as the leading follower of
                  Jesus, yet it is clear from both Galatians and Acts that within 10 years of
                  the crucifixion the undisputed leader was James.

                  BRUCE: Not parallel. Mark does not discuss events after the Crucifixion.
                  Acts does. It may stand as agreed that within 10 years of the Crucifixion
                  Jacob was important in the Jerusalem Church. But a lot can happen in ten
                  years, and Acts itself portrays Peter as being at first the leading figure
                  at Jerusalem, only later (and by a process about which Acts says exactly
                  nothing) to be supplanted in that role by Jacob. Galatians does not deal
                  with the Church, except by way of persecution, prior to the conversion of
                  Paul, so again there is no competing testimony. Acts has its problems as a
                  text, including a highly schematized narrative agenda, but so far as it
                  goes, it puts the ascendancy of Jacob well after the founding of the
                  Jerusalem Church. This is consistent with the idea that Jacob was a late
                  comer to faith in his brother. If a late comer, even within the period after
                  the Crucifixion, then not a believer during Jesus's life, which is what Mark
                  is saying.

                  [I had noted the lack of positive testimony for Jacob as an early member of
                  the Jesus movement]:

                  RON: I can't comment on this because I don't understand what you mean by
                  "outside of the second phase".

                  BRUCE: Sorry, let me rephrase. The first phase of Christianity is the
                  preaching of Jesus during his lifetime. No witnesses, in or out of the NT,
                  give Jacob a place in the movement at this time.

                  The second phase of Christianity is the time of the Galilee-based movement,
                  recently bereft of its founder, and presumably under the leadership of the
                  Twelve or their institutional predecessors. This would presumably have been
                  the time of Peter, of whom the Gospels repeatedly speak in what amounts to
                  the future tense. Again, no testimony whatever locates Jacob as a member,
                  never mind a leader, of the movement at this time.

                  The third phase of Christianity is the founding and growth and domination of
                  the Jerusalem Church, and the corresponding eclipse of Galilee. The
                  influence of the original disciples (whether twelve or another number) would
                  probably have waned at this period, and other leadership would probably have
                  emerged. Acts shows Peter precisely as waning during this period, and coming
                  to be subject to the central leadership of Jacob (who comes on the scene
                  entirely unexplained). This is exactly where all traditions known to me,
                  uncontradicted, place Jacob: a sudden leader in a movement which has already
                  evolved considerably from its roots.

                  Again, I see nothing in this to contradict or impugn the witness of Mark as
                  to events during Jesus's lifetime.

                  Let it be noted as well that the whole tone of Mark, a tone which if
                  anything is more strongly emphasized in the later Gospels, is the separation
                  between family, success, conventional life in all aspects, and the Way of
                  Jesus. One must renounce family, abandon possessions, "hate" one's wife or
                  other close connections, and set out on the road with no provisions, never
                  looking back, without so much as honoring the most elemental claims of
                  filial piety (burying your father). If the Jesus movement had been dominated
                  from the beginning by Jesus's immediate family, would the movement itself
                  have been described this way? It's not impossible, nothing is impossible,
                  but would it be one's first choice on the midterm quiz?

                  [I had also mentioned some of the tales told of Jacob]:

                  RON: Again I don't follow you. In any case "legendary tradition" is
                  irrelevant for those like me who are only interested in the history.

                  BRUCE: With Jacob, to mention nobody else here discussed, there seems to be
                  nothing *but* legendary tradition: stories (not always mutually consistent)
                  of his death at the hands of the hardliners in Jerusalem, tales of his
                  tremendous piety and constant praying. Granted that these as they stand are
                  inventions, like nearly everything else in the texts we are considering (for
                  example, Acts and Galatians famously differ about some details of the
                  Apostolic Compromise), I think it useful to note that all the inventions
                  concerning Jacob seem to run in one way. And that way is toward a kind of
                  conspicuous Temple piety which, if we believe anything the Synoptics tell
                  us, Jesus fundamentally opposed.

                  If in fact (as Mark invites us to assume) Jacob did not follow Jesus in
                  Jesus's lifetime, and if (as Mark does not exactly say, but as would be
                  consistent with what he *does* say) Jacob disapproved of Jesus's stance on
                  one or another points of doctrine or practice, what might have been those
                  points? Jesus was a wonder-worker; nothing of the kind is recorded of James;
                  he dealt only with what was psychologically familiar. Jesus lamented over
                  Jerusalem, and was in fact killed there; Jacob seems to have had his whole
                  career there; he was a centrist. Jesus deplored showoff praying; Jacob was a
                  showcase prayer. If after Jesus's death his movement was eventually taken
                  over by people who were more respectful of the Law, of the Temple center,
                  and of the psychologically normal (Acts records marvelous events of many
                  persons, but never of Jacob, who is not even an Apostle and never expounds
                  doctrine; he is rather simply a leader), then Jacob is just the sort of
                  person we might expect to find at the helm, with headquarters in Jerusalem,
                  and with the authority of kinship to challenge Peter and company, who (see
                  again Acts for one reconstruction) have only the authority of prior
                  acquaintance, and possession of the Holy Spirit, a thing which all new
                  believers receive at baptism, and is thus nondistinctive.

                  I thus find Acts, by and large, to be entirely compatible with what Mark
                  says and implies. The Jerusalemizing tendency of Matthew, who moves to
                  restore in every iota the Law that Jesus had sought to radically simplify,
                  is a credible way station toward that development. Against this, what can be
                  offered in support of the idea that Jacob was an early adherent of Jesus?

                  [I had asked, If Jacob had been an early follower of his brother, what would
                  have been Mark's reason for saying otherwise?]

                  RON: Because Mark promoted the gospel of Paul (which became Christianity)
                  and James promoted a sect of Judaism (which sect eventually fizzled out).

                  BRUCE: That seems indeed to be the large historical movement, though I am
                  not sure that Mark is well summarized as "promoting the gospel of Paul." As
                  to how well founded or exiguous the Pauline touches in Mark may be, that is
                  probably best treated in a separate discussion. But do these final outcomes
                  provide a sufficient basis for impugning the early situation implied by
                  Mark? To me, they are consistent with it. On all the evidence available to
                  us, Jacob disagreed with the Jesus movement as Jesus himself was leading it.
                  That fact would admit the possibility that Mark's description was accurate
                  for Jacob in Jesus's lifetime. No?

                  I see Jacob as a Jimmy-come-lately, an opportunist, and with respect to
                  conventional Temple piety, a recidivist and fanatic. Paul, to me, differs
                  only in his rejection of Temple piety, the point at which Acts and Galatians
                  agree in showing the two at odds. Paul, by his own account, is a Temple
                  fanatic, a Temple zealot, who at one dramatic moment turned around 180
                  degrees, applying the same temperament to the opposite side of the question
                  at issue. The Gospel record taken together does not disguise the fact that
                  Paul was originally the most virulent of the Jesus movement's early
                  opponents (that is, during its days in Galilee, and for once, Acts slips up
                  and actually mentions the word "Galilee"). Why must we doubt that same
                  record when it also suggests that Jacob was not one of the movement's early
                  adherents?

                  Bruce
                • Ron Price
                  ... Bruce, This is a deviation which does not address the point I was trying to make. The fact is that you and many others believe witness A (Mark) who
                  Message 8 of 11 , Dec 12, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I wrote:

                    > RON [to Lance, who had questioned the "denigration" criterion as applied to
                    > Mark]: Let's consider a legal analogy. If witness A denigrates the character
                    > of witness B, do you believe witness A? No fair-minded person would do so
                    > without trying to find other evidence bearing on the case. And if there is
                    > no other evidence, the fair-minded person would surely be forced to suspend
                    > judgment, in other words, treat witness A's testimony as unreliable, that
                    > is, the testimony cannot be relied upon to be true.

                    Bruce Brooks replied:

                    > This amounts to the rule that only favorable testimony is inherently
                    > credible.

                    Bruce,

                    This is a deviation which does not address the point I was trying to make.
                    The fact is that you and many others believe 'witness A' (Mark) who
                    denigrates the character of 'witnesses B & C' (James & Peter) in spite of
                    the absence of any evidence from the defendants. To me this seems unfair and
                    likely to lead to a misreading of history.

                    > ..... Acts itself portrays Peter as being at first the leading figure
                    > at Jerusalem,

                    This is true. But we should remember that the first part of Luke-Acts was
                    dependent on Mark, and 'Luke' somehow had to blend the pre-eminence of Peter
                    taken from Mark with his knowledge that James was the undisputed leader of
                    the Jesus movement in Jerusalem. Fortunately for historians the blending
                    process was rather crude, leaving the clue of the sudden and unexplained
                    supremacy of James.

                    > The second phase of Christianity is the time of the Galilee-based movement,
                    > recently bereft of its founder, and presumably under the leadership of the
                    > Twelve or their institutional predecessors. This would presumably have been
                    > the time of Peter, .....

                    I see no evidence of such a phase. Exactly what events are supposed to have
                    occurred in this phase?

                    > Let it be noted as well that the whole tone of Mark, a tone which if
                    > anything is more strongly emphasized in the later Gospels, is the separation
                    > between family, success, conventional life in all aspects, and the Way of
                    > Jesus. One must renounce family, abandon possessions, "hate" one's wife or
                    > other close connections, and set out on the road with no provisions, never
                    > looking back, without so much as honoring the most elemental claims of
                    > filial piety (burying your father). If the Jesus movement had been dominated
                    > from the beginning by Jesus's immediate family, would the movement itself
                    > have been described this way?

                    I suggest that abandoning one's family is by implication only advocated if
                    the rest of one's family declines to follow Jesus. At least that's the way
                    I've always understood it.

                    > ..... I think it useful to note that all the inventions
                    > concerning Jacob seem to run in one way. And that way is toward a kind of
                    > conspicuous Temple piety which, if we believe anything the Synoptics tell
                    > us, Jesus fundamentally opposed.

                    If there is some truth in the story of Jesus ejecting the moneylenders from
                    the Temple, and there probably is, then it indicates to me his desire to
                    restore correct temple procedures, not to abandon them altogether. The
                    synoptic 'prediction' by Jesus of the destruction of the temple is dependent
                    on Mark's testimony and was made after the event.

                    > .....
                    > I thus find Acts, by and large, to be entirely compatible with what Mark
                    > says and implies. The Jerusalemizing tendency of Matthew, who moves to
                    > restore in every iota the Law that Jesus had sought to radically simplify,
                    > is a credible way station toward that development. Against this, what can be
                    > offered in support of the idea that Jacob was an early adherent of Jesus?

                    My interpretation of the evidence is that the logia was edited by Matthew
                    under the authority of James, and we can therefore compare what the logia
                    teaches with what we know about James from Acts and Galatians. As I
                    mentioned earlier in this exchange, the two are entirely compatible. They
                    are especially close regarding attitude to the law and to the poor. As the
                    majority of the sayings probably go back to Jesus, the outlook of James is
                    closely linked to that of Jesus via the logia.

                    > ..... On all the evidence available to
                    > us, Jacob disagreed with the Jesus movement as Jesus himself was leading it.
                    > That fact would admit the possibility that Mark's description was accurate
                    > for Jacob in Jesus's lifetime. No?

                    "possibility" yes. "likelihood" no.

                    > ..... The Gospel record taken together does not disguise the fact that
                    > Paul was originally the most virulent of the Jesus movement's early
                    > opponents (that is, during its days in Galilee, and for once, Acts slips up
                    > and actually mentions the word "Galilee"). Why must we doubt that same
                    > record when it also suggests that Jacob was not one of the movement's early
                    > adherents?

                    The canonical gospels were written to promote what came to be known as
                    Christianity, and the later ones were all dependent on Mark. Paul converted
                    to a recognizably Christian viewpoint and his past was forgiven. James
                    remained a Jew and therefore retained a fundamentally different theology. In
                    the competitive environment of the birth of his new faith, Mark could not
                    forgive James: to have done so would have cast doubt on the validity of the
                    faith he was trying to promote (Mk 1:1).

                    Ron Price

                    Derbyshire, UK

                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                    Could someone direct me to a website with transliteration tables? I ve been Googling around without finding any standard, professional ones. Jeffery Hodges
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jan 2, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Could someone direct me to a website with transliteration tables? I've been Googling around without finding any standard, professional ones.

                      Jeffery Hodges


                      University Degrees:

                      Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley
                      (Doctoral Thesis: "Food as Synecdoche in John's Gospel and Gnostic Texts")
                      M.A., History of Science, U.C. Berkeley
                      B.A., English Language and Literature, Baylor University

                      Email Address:

                      jefferyhodges@...

                      Blog:

                      http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/

                      Office Address:

                      Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      School of English, Kyung Hee University
                      1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu
                      Seoul, 130-701
                      South Korea

                      Home Address:

                      Dr. Sun-Ae Hwang and Dr. Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      Gunyoung Apt. 102-204
                      Sangbong-dong 1
                      Jungnang-gu
                      Seoul 131-771
                      South Korea

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Joseph Weaks
                      I m guessing you mean Greek transliteration schemes? Here are some options: The suggested transliteration scheme for the B-Greek e-list:
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jan 2, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I'm guessing you mean Greek transliteration schemes?

                        Here are some options:
                        The suggested transliteration scheme for the B-Greek e-list:
                        http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/transliteration.txt

                        The full tables of the Text Criticism e-journal:
                        http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/TC-translit.html

                        The description further of BetaCode Greek
                        http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/OM/Beta-codes.html

                        I would also encourage you to have a look at the very well done
                        transliteration work by OakTree:
                        http://www.accordancebible.com/resources/pdf/fonts.pdf
                        specifically with their Rosetta font designed just for Greek/Hebrew
                        transliteration.

                        Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                        Minister, Raytown Christian Church
                        Ph.D. Candidate, Brite Divinity School, TCU


                        On Jan 3, 2008, at 12:25 AM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

                        > Could someone direct me to a website with transliteration tables?
                        > I've been Googling around without finding any standard, professional
                        > ones.
                        >
                        > Jeffery Hodges
                      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                        Greek, thank, but also: Transliterating Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, etc. I had that in the subject heading, but I can imagine that it s not so obvious that I
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jan 2, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Greek, thank, but also:

                          "Transliterating Greek, Hebrew, Coptic, etc."

                          I had that in the subject heading, but I can imagine that it's not so obvious that I wouldn't be overlooked. (Also Syriac.)

                          Jeffery Hodges

                          Joseph Weaks <j.weaks@...> wrote:
                          I'm guessing you mean Greek transliteration schemes?

                          Here are some options:
                          The suggested transliteration scheme for the B-Greek e-list:
                          http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/transliteration.txt

                          The full tables of the Text Criticism e-journal:
                          http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/TC-translit.html

                          The description further of BetaCode Greek
                          http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/OM/Beta-codes.html

                          I would also encourage you to have a look at the very well done
                          transliteration work by OakTree:
                          http://www.accordancebible.com/resources/pdf/fonts.pdf
                          specifically with their Rosetta font designed just for Greek/Hebrew
                          transliteration.

                          Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                          Minister, Raytown Christian Church
                          Ph.D. Candidate, Brite Divinity School, TCU


                          On Jan 3, 2008, at 12:25 AM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

                          > Could someone direct me to a website with transliteration tables?
                          > I've been Googling around without finding any standard, professional
                          > ones.
                          >
                          > Jeffery Hodges


                          Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l
                          Yahoo! Groups Links






                          University Degrees:

                          Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley
                          (Doctoral Thesis: "Food as Synecdoche in John's Gospel and Gnostic Texts")
                          M.A., History of Science, U.C. Berkeley
                          B.A., English Language and Literature, Baylor University

                          Email Address:

                          jefferyhodges@...

                          Blog:

                          http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/

                          Office Address:

                          Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                          School of English, Kyung Hee University
                          1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu
                          Seoul, 130-701
                          South Korea

                          Home Address:

                          Dr. Sun-Ae Hwang and Dr. Horace Jeffery Hodges
                          Gunyoung Apt. 102-204
                          Sangbong-dong 1
                          Jungnang-gu
                          Seoul 131-771
                          South Korea

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.