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

Re: Pentecostalism ca. 50

Expand Messages
  • Stevan Davies
    ... This is so, because they have other ways of phrasing the same thing. This was so because the consensus of our near- contemporaneous sources indicate
    Message 1 of 24 , Sep 2 3:28 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 14:56:29 -0400 (EDT)
      > From: y.kuchinsky@...
      > To: Stevan Davies <miser17@...>
      > Cc: crosstalk@...
      > Subject: Re: Pentecostalism ca. 50

      >
      > On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Stevan Davies wrote:
      >
      > [Yuri:]
      > > > But how do we know that this was so at the time of Jesus?
      > >
      > > For the bible tells me so.

      > Steve,
      >
      > This sort of a reply is generally not given much value among serious
      > historians.

      This is so, because they have other ways of phrasing the same
      thing. "This was so because the consensus of our near-
      contemporaneous sources indicate this," might be how they'd put it.

      > > For the time of Jesus one can hunt
      > > down the appropriate vocabulary by determining what it was
      > > that was said about prophets.
      >
      > So these will only be hypothetical reconstructions.

      This is so. The historians who do not do hypothetical reconstructions
      but guaranteed-to-be-correct reconstructions are methologically
      bound to inerrant source materials and my commitment to inerrancy
      fluctuates.

      > > Oh good. Since they are valid, I'm in good shape.
      >
      > They may be valid. Or maybe not.

      Well, since I've laid out in detail one place or another my reasons
      to think they are valid, the "not" case is up to you.

      > > > I doubt that Paul was pentecostal. Lots of things in Pauline writings go
      > > > against this. But we discussed this before.
      > >
      > > I don't remember this discussion.
      >
      > As far as I remember, I quoted Koester who doesn't think Paul was a
      > charismatic theios aner type.

      Koester may be right. So what's the point? Pentecostal and
      charismatic theios aner are two different things.

      > Here's your definition:
      >
      > > Prophet/healer movements are focused on one unique individual who has
      > > "the spirit" and pentecostal movements expect all members to have "the
      > > spirit."
      >
      > Such a typology is open to question on a number of fronts. One obvious
      > problem I see is that "prophets" are not generally associated with healing
      > in the Tanach. In general, prophets seemed to play mostly political role,
      > e.g. to criticise the King, or the Temple, and to intercede for the poor.
      > Or to criticise the laxity of morals and such.
      >
      > The prophets taught. They were ethical-oriented and political. Prophets
      > certainly did not perform miracles (possibly with some minor exceptions)
      > which are generally a part of the healing repertoire.

      Paul and I agree with you, I think. That's why Paul has various
      categories for people manifesting the spirit including the
      separation of prophets from healers. So do most or all
      other pentecostal movements. So do spirit-possession cults like
      Voodoo (which are in the same general category as pentecostalism:
      focusing on altered states of consciousness attributed to spirits).

      If we are talking here about Jesus the prophet/healer I just appeal
      to the bible that says he was both and to the great consensus of
      scholarship that does the same. Who can you think of that
      says he was NOT a healer? Who says the term "prophet" is
      clearly inappropriate? So he wasn't a prophet in the Takach sense.
      I never said he was and the evidence certainly is against it.

      > > But since I have defined it you can't argue
      > > as you do that "tongues" is uniquely definitive of pentecostalism
      > > in terms of my definition.
      >
      > Well, all this seeming terminological quagmire that I see in this area is
      > just one reason I've never been too enthusiastic about dealing with this
      > general subject.

      It's not a quagmire. I've spelled out the definitions and distinctions.

      >> the wierd psychological states people
      > > get into are attributed to spirits and are manifested in various
      > > ways... gifts of healing, kinds of tongues, prophecy,
      >
      > But are you really justified in including prophesy here?

      Yes. Do you need to be reminded that prophets speak the words
      of God because the spirit of God comes into them? I'd quote 2 Peter
      but you might as well look it up.

      > > workers of miracles, and so forth. Luke tells me that Christians had
      > > to have the spirit, so does Paul (Romans 8 e.g.). I'd find it pretty
      > > odd that apostles didn't have it but mere prophets did.
      >
      > The term "to have the spirit" is still quite vague for me. Sorry.

      To have the spirit is to experience an altered state of consciousness
      within the Christian movement and to attribute it to the spirit.

      > > But sure, you have here an 'organizational chart'
      > > featuring Paul, of course, at the top... and "prophets" (spirit
      > > possessed by definition)
      >
      > By _your_ definition.

      True. But "they had the spirit" by definition is the native
      expression and you don't like that either. Why is this so hard?
      Are you claiming that it was the understanding back then that
      prophets spoke their own thoughts with no supernatural spirit
      involved?

      > > second.
      > >
      > > I've always been troubled by the fact that the best model for
      > > first century Xians are 20th century Pentecostal Xians who
      > > seek to model themselves on first century Xians. But I'm not
      > > sure why this must be methodologically unacceptable.
      >
      > It may be too vague.

      It's the single most clear model proposed since the publication of
      analogies between early Christianity and millinarian cults. One of
      the scandals of NT studies is that vanishingly few scholars propose
      any analogies at all, and leave it to be assumed that early
      Christianity was absolutely unlike any cult/sect movement that
      ever existed before or since.

      > I still find that it seems to weaken your case that in 1 Cor 12 apostles
      > and prophets are very clearly differentiated from "workers of miracles"
      > and healers -- who are put below them in the hierarchy. And that "those
      > speaking in different kinds of tongues" are the very last on the list.

      What unites them is that the phenomena are to be accredited to the
      activity of the spirit. If Paul heirarchizes them... that's
      interesting but insignificant. He also unheirarcizes them with his
      body metaphor. He's basically heirarchizing in terms of intelligible
      content and utility, which seems to be his own particular
      perspective. Reasoning from analogy would make it seem reasonable
      that the actual cult members probably would favor healers over
      prophets etc. Prophets, contra Paul, don't actually accomplish
      anything much that helps anybody directly. Healers do.

      > So, Steve, perhaps you may wish to consider 1 Cor 12 an interpolation
      > after all? I think this will probably strengthen your general case.

      Nope.

      > > > This sure doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement of a "pentecostal
      > > > movement" to me -- whoever wrote those verses.
      > >
      > > Does to me. But we are evidently a long ways apart in our
      > > understanding, or even definition, of "pentecostal."
      >
      > This seems clearly the case.

      I have no idea why. What about my definitions don't you understand?

      > > > Yes, but I think much in Paul's letters was written about the same time as
      > > > Lk, i.e. well after 100.
      > >
      > > I agree, for Acts anyhow, except I'd put that date over 40 years earlier.
      >
      > Let me know if and when you will find anyone in the world to agree with
      > you on this -- outside of a couple of more eccentric posters to Crosstalk.

      Well, I've given arguments several times in the past few days and
      nobody has bothered to respond, so there may be zero in the world
      eccentric or not. Or, on the other hand, were my arguments so
      persuasive that all but you have found them flawless and
      unobjectionable? Perhaps we shall never know which.

      > > You betcha. I think they had all burned bridges behind them with their
      > > families and stayed in Jerusalem because they didn't know what else to
      > > do... didn't have to go to Galilee until Joanna's money ran out...
      >
      > So this is the basis on which you're founding your whole general theory? I
      > really don't know how seriously I should be replying to this. Perhaps you
      > can clarify this further for me.

      It's trivial for the theory.

      > > but fortunately the Holy Ghost showed up and sparked the beginning of
      > > a successful pentecostal cult that brought in much needed donations as
      > > folks joined up.
      >
      > Yes, I know that you really need the Pentecost for your theory to work.
      > But sorry, Steve, I just don't see it. History is history. I will not
      > compromise the scientific method just to make myself look like as a nice
      > guy...

      I don't need a) the Pentecost (Luke's account) or even b) a
      particular event somewhere sometime to account for the evidence.
      I can just point to the evidence of a shift from prophet/healer to
      pentecostal and say "whatever the hell happened, something caused
      the shift." If you are greatly bothered by calling "whatever the hell
      happened" Pentecost, we can call if Zublilch. OK with me.

      Steve
    • Bob Schacht
      ... May I interject to quote the Tanach, specifically the Pentateuch? Deuteronomy 34:10 And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the
      Message 2 of 24 , Sep 2 5:04 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        At 06:28 PM 9/2/98 -0400, Stevan Davies wrote:
        >> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 14:56:29 -0400 (EDT)
        >> From: y.kuchinsky@...
        >...
        >> Such a typology is open to question on a number of fronts. One obvious
        >> problem I see is that "prophets" are not generally associated with healing
        >> in the Tanach.

        May I interject to quote the Tanach, specifically the Pentateuch?


        Deuteronomy 34:10
        And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the
        LORD knew face to face...

        See also Deuteronomy 18:15, which has Moses calling himself a prophet, a
        passage quoted in Acts 3:22

        Seems to me that Moses did a miracle or two, if I remember correctly. And
        although healing was not his forte, it was not totally without testimony:


        Numbers 21:8-9
        And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole;
        and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live."
        So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit
        any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.


        And if you (Yuri) suppose that prophets were all wry political
        commentators, I'd suggest reviewing Numbers 11:24-29.


        >>...Prophets
        >> certainly did not perform miracles (possibly with some minor exceptions)
        >> which are generally a part of the healing repertoire.
        >

        You call Moses a minor exception? He pretty much wrote the book (so to speak).


        Sorry, gotta run.

        Bob
        Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D., Director of Research
        American Indian Rehabilitation Research & Training Center
        Institute for Human Development, University Affiliated Program
        P.O.Box 5630
        Northern Arizona University
        Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5630
        phone 520-523-1342; FAX 520-523-9127
        http://www.nau.edu/~ihd/airrtc.html
      • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
        On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Bob Schacht wrote: ... Bob, Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet. Of course yours and Steve s point may be better
        Message 3 of 24 , Sep 4 7:02 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Bob Schacht wrote:

          ...

          > Seems to me that Moses did a miracle or two, if I remember correctly.
          > And although healing was not his forte, it was not totally without
          > testimony:

          Bob,

          Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet.

          Of course yours and Steve's point may be better served by bringing up the
          example of Elija/Elisha. These provide the best parallel to Jesus in the
          OT. But we don't have a book in the OT named after Elija. So he wasn't so
          big among those who compiled the OT.

          So we cannot assume that the concept of prophet/healer can be seen as a
          common concept in the OT.

          Regards,

          Yuri.
        • Lewis Reich
          ... I m puzzled. I d have thought the question was not whether the individual was of proven historicity but what the attributes of the role were thought to be
          Message 4 of 24 , Sep 4 7:40 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            On 4 Sep 98, at 22:02, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:

            > Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet.

            I'm puzzled. I'd have thought the question was not whether the individual was
            of proven historicity but what the attributes of the role were thought to be as
            reflected in writings about various personages.

            > Of course yours and Steve's point may be better served by bringing up the
            > example of Elija/Elisha. These provide the best parallel to Jesus in the
            > OT. But we don't have a book in the OT named after Elija. So he wasn't so
            > big among those who compiled the OT.

            Again, it seems to me that that conclusion does not necessarily follow. After
            all, we have a book in the OT named after Zephaniah, but not one named after
            Moses. Does this mean that Zephaniah can be assumed to have been more
            important than Moses to those who compiled the OT? There's no book
            named after David, either. Obviously, David was less important than
            Habbakuk.

            Lewis Reich
            LBR@...
          • Bob Schacht
            ... Ah yes. If the evidence disagrees with you, discard the evidence. In a sense it is immaterial whether Moses was historical or not. To Jesus and his
            Message 5 of 24 , Sep 4 9:01 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              At 10:02 PM 9/4/98 -0400, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:
              >
              >
              >On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Bob chacht wrote:
              >
              > ...
              >
              >> Seems to me that Moses did a miracle or two, if I remember correctly.
              >> And although healing was not his forte, it was not totally without
              >> testimony:
              >
              >Bob,
              >
              >Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet.
              >
              >Of course yours and Steve's point may be better served by bringing up the
              >example of Elija/Elisha. These provide the best parallel to Jesus in the
              >OT. But we don't have a book in the OT named after Elija. So he wasn't so
              >big among those who compiled the OT.
              >
              >So we cannot assume that the concept of prophet/healer can be seen as a
              >common concept in the OT.
              >
              >Regards,
              >
              >Yuri.

              Ah yes. If the evidence disagrees with you, discard the evidence.
              In a sense it is immaterial whether Moses was historical or not. To Jesus
              and his contemporaries, Moses was "real", and the concept of "prophet" to
              Jesus and his contemporaries was defined, in part, by the perceived
              exemplar of Moses and what they believed about him. The fact that this
              mattered to them is established by Acts 3:22. So your objection is not
              probative.

              Bob
              "Is it not extraordinary to the point of being a miracle, that so loose
              and ill-constructed a narrative in an antique translation of a dubious
              text should after so many centuries still have power to quell and
              dominate a restless, opinionated, overexercised and undernourished,
              twentieth-century mind?"
              Malcolm Muggeridge _Jesus Rediscovered_ (1969), writing about
              the KJV New Testament -
            • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
              ... OK, Lewis, but was Moses really a prophet/healer? Did he heal someone? Please refresh my memory. ... Pentateuch is the 5 books of Moses. ... But was David
              Message 6 of 24 , Sep 5 11:33 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Lewis Reich wrote:

                > On 4 Sep 98, at 22:02, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:
                >
                > > Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet.
                >
                > I'm puzzled. I'd have thought the question was not whether the
                > individual was of proven historicity but what the attributes of the role
                > were thought to be as reflected in writings about various personages.

                OK, Lewis, but was Moses really a prophet/healer? Did he heal someone?
                Please refresh my memory.

                > > Of course yours and Steve's point may be better served by bringing up the
                > > example of Elija/Elisha. These provide the best parallel to Jesus in the
                > > OT. But we don't have a book in the OT named after Elija. So he wasn't so
                > > big among those who compiled the OT.
                >
                > Again, it seems to me that that conclusion does not necessarily follow.
                > After all, we have a book in the OT named after Zephaniah, but not one
                > named after Moses.

                Pentateuch is the 5 books of Moses.

                > Does this mean that Zephaniah can be assumed to have been more important
                > than Moses to those who compiled the OT? There's no book named after
                > David, either. Obviously, David was less important than Habbakuk.

                But was David a prophet?

                Regards,

                Yuri.
              • Lewis Reich
                ... He healed his sister Miriam by prayer (after a delay of seven days) Num 12:13. He is referred to explicitly as a *navi* (the word which is translated by
                Message 7 of 24 , Sep 5 5:11 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 5 Sep 98, at 14:33, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:


                  > On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Lewis Reich wrote:
                  >
                  > > On 4 Sep 98, at 22:02, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > Moses is a legendary figure. Hardly a historical prophet.

                  LBR:
                  > > I'm puzzled. I'd have thought the question was not whether the
                  > > individual was of proven historicity but what the attributes of the role
                  > > were thought to be as reflected in writings about various personages.

                  Yuri:
                  > OK, Lewis, but was Moses really a prophet/healer? Did he heal someone?
                  > Please refresh my memory.

                  He healed his sister Miriam by prayer (after a delay of seven days) Num 12:13.
                  He is referred to explicitly as a *navi* (the word which is translated by
                  *prophetes* in the LXX) in the text (Deut. 34:10), in fact as the greatest
                  *navi*.

                  Yuri:
                  > > > Of course yours and Steve's point may be better served by bringing up the
                  > > > example of Elija/Elisha. These provide the best parallel to Jesus in the
                  > > > OT. But we don't have a book in the OT named after Elija. So he wasn't so
                  > > > big among those who compiled the OT.

                  LBR:
                  > > Again, it seems to me that that conclusion does not necessarily follow.
                  > > After all, we have a book in the OT named after Zephaniah, but not one
                  > > named after Moses.

                  Yuri:
                  > Pentateuch is the 5 books of Moses.

                  The Pentateuch is often referred to as such, however, it is not named after
                  Moses.

                  LBR:
                  > > Does this mean that Zephaniah can be assumed to have been more important
                  > > than Moses to those who compiled the OT? There's no book named after
                  > > David, either. Obviously, David was less important than Habbakuk.

                  Yuri:
                  > But was David a prophet?

                  That might depend on how you define the term; if I am not mistaken, a
                  Muslim would likely answer yes. In any event, I'm not sure whether his status
                  as a prophet is relevant to the question, which I took to be whether having a
                  book named after one is an appropriate index of how important a particular
                  personage was to those who compiled the OT.

                  Lewis Reich
                  LBR@...
                • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
                  ... Thanks for this reminder, Lewis. I think we can safely say that Moses was not primarily a healer, although he was certainly a prophet. And yet he was also
                  Message 8 of 24 , Sep 8 7:45 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sat, 5 Sep 1998, Lewis Reich wrote:
                    > On 5 Sep 98, at 14:33, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:

                    > > OK, Lewis, but was Moses really a prophet/healer? Did he heal someone?
                    > > Please refresh my memory.
                    >
                    > He healed his sister Miriam by prayer (after a delay of seven days) Num
                    > 12:13. He is referred to explicitly as a *navi* (the word which is
                    > translated by *prophetes* in the LXX) in the text (Deut. 34:10), in fact
                    > as the greatest *navi*.

                    Thanks for this reminder, Lewis.

                    I think we can safely say that Moses was not primarily a healer, although
                    he was certainly a prophet. And yet he was also more than a prophet, he
                    was a great founding figure.

                    But it is clear to me that the prophets and the healers do not necessarily
                    fall into the same category in the Tanakh. Most of the prophets clearly
                    are not healers. So the category Prophet/healer certainly doesn't seem
                    like something that we need to take for granted.

                    Best,

                    Yuri.
                  • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
                    On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Stevan Davies wrote: [Yuri:] ... Steve, Are you aware of any Christians anywhere anytime who claimed _not to have_ the spirit? Everyone has
                    Message 9 of 24 , Sep 8 8:23 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Stevan Davies wrote:

                      [Yuri:]
                      > > I still find that it seems to weaken your case that in 1 Cor 12 apostles
                      > > and prophets are very clearly differentiated from "workers of miracles"
                      > > and healers -- who are put below them in the hierarchy. And that "those
                      > > speaking in different kinds of tongues" are the very last on the list.
                      >
                      > What unites them is that the phenomena are to be accredited to the
                      > activity of the spirit.

                      Steve,

                      Are you aware of any Christians anywhere anytime who claimed _not to have_
                      the spirit? Everyone has the spirit. So having the spirit thing is pretty
                      well meaningless as a category -- because it is so broad.

                      > If Paul heirarchizes them... that's interesting but insignificant.

                      I think it is rather significant because it clearly seems like a snub to
                      list the speakers in tongues well below everyone else. Even administrators
                      -- the office workers -- are put above. So it is not likely that the
                      author of this passage was describing a "pentecostal movement".

                      > He also unheirarcizes them with his body metaphor. He's basically
                      > heirarchizing in terms of intelligible content and utility, which seems
                      > to be his own particular perspective.

                      Well, he's the boss. It's hardly just a particular perspective. It's a
                      determinative perspective.

                      > Reasoning from analogy would make it seem reasonable that the actual
                      > cult members probably would favor healers over prophets etc. Prophets,
                      > contra Paul, don't actually accomplish anything much that helps anybody
                      > directly. Healers do.

                      But Paul, i.e. the Big Boss, doesn't think much of them. Hence it was not
                      a pentecostal movement.

                      > > So, Steve, perhaps you may wish to consider 1 Cor 12 an interpolation
                      > > after all? I think this will probably strengthen your general case.
                      >
                      > Nope.

                      So then you have these problems above.

                      ...

                      > > Yes, I know that you really need the Pentecost for your theory to work.
                      > > But sorry, Steve, I just don't see it. History is history. I will not
                      > > compromise the scientific method just to make myself look like as a nice
                      > > guy...
                      >
                      > I don't need a) the Pentecost (Luke's account) or even b) a
                      > particular event somewhere sometime to account for the evidence.

                      Well, this sounds much better to me already.

                      > I can just point to the evidence of a shift from prophet/healer to
                      > pentecostal and say "whatever the hell happened, something caused
                      > the shift." If you are greatly bothered by calling "whatever the hell
                      > happened" Pentecost, we can call if Zublilch. OK with me.

                      The difficulty here as I see it is as follows. One may get a suspicion
                      that you may have designed your categories of "prophet/healer" and
                      "pentecostal" just in such a way so that there will be a fundamental
                      difference between them -- just such a difference that will need this
                      seemingly problematic shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy to have taken place.
                      In other words, the question may be asked, Is this
                      shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy really so necessary for understanding
                      early evolution of the Christian movement? Perhaps dispensing with the
                      thingy may clarify things more than will be the case otherwise?

                      Just some thoughts...

                      Regards,

                      Yuri.
                    • Lewis Reich
                      ... Certainly, he was more prophet and teacher than healer. Jewish tradition regards him as Moshe rabbenu , lit. Moses our rabbi - in this context, I
                      Message 10 of 24 , Sep 8 10:41 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 8 Sep 98, at 22:45, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:

                        > I think we can safely say that Moses was not primarily a healer, although
                        > he was certainly a prophet.

                        Certainly, he was more "prophet" and teacher than healer. Jewish tradition
                        regards him as "Moshe rabbenu", lit. Moses our "rabbi" - in this context, I
                        think most accurately translated as "teacher".

                        > And yet he was also more than a prophet, he
                        > was a great founding figure.

                        With a caveat that Jewish tradition regards Abraham as clearly the pre-
                        eminent founding figure. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are revered as the "fathers"
                        (generally rendered in English as "patriarchs" - the traditional texts refer to
                        them as "Avraham avinu", "Yaakov avinu", etc. "avinu" means "our father") , not
                        Moses, although it is Moses who is the paradigmatic man of God and lawgiver.


                        > But it is clear to me that the prophets and the healers do not necessarily
                        > fall into the same category in the Tanakh. Most of the prophets clearly
                        > are not healers.

                        I think that's exactly right.

                        > So the category Prophet/healer certainly doesn't seem
                        > like something that we need to take for granted.

                        The first-century healer mentioned in the Talmud, Hanina ben Dosa, certainly
                        was not regarded as a prophet.

                        Lewis Reich
                        LBR@...
                      • Anne Quast
                        ... He didn t cure Miriam. He talked to God. It was God s decision. Moses prayed that Miriam would be cured, but he didn t heal her. We just covered this
                        Message 11 of 24 , Sep 9 6:53 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 22:45 8/09/98 -0400, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >On Sat, 5 Sep 1998, Lewis Reich wrote:
                          >> On 5 Sep 98, at 14:33, y.kuchinsky@... wrote:
                          >
                          >> > OK, Lewis, but was Moses really a prophet/healer? Did he heal someone?
                          >> > Please refresh my memory.
                          >>
                          >> He healed his sister Miriam by prayer (after a delay of seven days) Num
                          >> 12:13. He is referred to explicitly as a *navi* (the word which is
                          >> translated by *prophetes* in the LXX) in the text (Deut. 34:10), in fact
                          >> as the greatest *navi*.
                          >

                          He didn't cure Miriam. He talked to God. It was God's decision. Moses
                          prayed that Miriam would be cured, but he didn't heal her. We just covered
                          this in our Bible study Tuesday night!
                        • Stevan Davies
                          ... You can blend them together if you like by changing the nature of the discussion and so we can agree that the origins of Christianity are such that there
                          Message 12 of 24 , Sep 10 12:26 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > From: y.kuchinsky

                            > The difficulty here as I see it is as follows. One may get a suspicion
                            > that you may have designed your categories of "prophet/healer" and
                            > "pentecostal" just in such a way so that there will be a fundamental
                            > difference between them

                            You can blend them together if you like by changing the nature
                            of the discussion and so we can agree that the origins of
                            Christianity are such that there was one prophet/healer and then,
                            some time after His death, there were hundreds.

                            > -- just such a difference that will need this
                            > seemingly problematic shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy to have taken place.
                            > In other words, the question may be asked, Is this
                            > shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy really so necessary for understanding
                            > early evolution of the Christian movement? Perhaps dispensing with the
                            > thingy may clarify things more than will be the case otherwise?

                            It's not only unnecessary (logically) but downright annoying. I would
                            prefer to have good evidence that Jesus brought about spirit
                            accredited ASC experiences in his followers and not to have to
                            have this happen after his death. Do you have any good evidence
                            to this effect? If not, then we are still stuck with a man who was
                            said to be a prophet and a healer and to have the spirit and around
                            whom a group gathered and, when he died, the members of that group
                            collectively adopted the roles he formerly occupied uniquely. At
                            the moment that's what all the reliable evidence tells me happened.
                            (I'll point out that even if I adopt your interpolations and dating
                            hypotheses all that occurs is the movement of the shift/pentecost
                            back a couple generations. The same "it was this and became that"
                            historiography will pertain.)

                            Steve
                          • Jacob Knee
                            Can anyone recommend anything written on the theological use of the concept of rest in early christianity. My curiosity has been aroused by thinking about
                            Message 13 of 24 , Sep 11 4:45 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Can anyone recommend anything written on the theological use of the concept
                              of 'rest' in early christianity.

                              My curiosity has been aroused by thinking about the 'resting' material in
                              the Gospel of Thomas and it's use in early christian Jordan/baptismal
                              traditions.

                              Came across this quote from Gospel of the Hebrews (quoted by Jerome):

                              'And it came to pass when the Lord came up out of the water, the whole fount
                              of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him and said: 'My Son,
                              in all the prophets I was waiting for thee that thou shouldest come and I
                              might rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first begotten Son
                              that reignest forever.'

                              I thought of Gospel of Thomas 2 and the difference in wording between the
                              Greek and Coptic about reigning and resting.

                              Any recommendations for further reading about 'resting'? (Wasn't someone
                              asking about GThomas and baptism - slightly curious if baptism is in mind
                              why - as I remember it - maybe wrong - there is no mention of either the
                              Jordan or Spirit - is Spirit mentioned in GThomas at all?)

                              Rambling on as ever - but help appreciated nevertheless!,
                              Jacob Knee
                            • Jacob Knee
                              Forget the question about spirit - rather than have a quick glance at Valantasis index (which is what I did) - I went to Stevan s web site and searched the
                              Message 14 of 24 , Sep 11 5:01 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Forget the question about spirit - rather than have a quick glance at
                                Valantasis' index (which is what I did) - I went to Stevan's web site and
                                searched the translation (which is what I should have done in the first
                                place!).

                                Still interested in 'rest' though

                                Best wishes,
                                Jacob Knee


                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: owner-crosstalk@...
                                > [mailto:owner-crosstalk@...]On Behalf Of Jacob Knee
                                > Sent: 12 September 1998 00:46
                                > To: crosstalk@...
                                > Subject: rest/Jordan (GT 2)
                                >
                                >- is Spirit mentioned in GThomas at all?)
                                >
                                > Rambling on as ever - but help appreciated nevertheless!,
                                > Jacob Knee
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • Stevan Davies
                                ... Paul s Letter to Hebrews often uses rest in a sense similar to the sense it is found in Thomas and Matthew 11:28-29. Otherwise not in the NT. If you
                                Message 15 of 24 , Sep 12 1:48 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > From: "Jacob Knee"

                                  > Can anyone recommend anything written on the theological use of the concept
                                  > of 'rest' in early christianity.

                                  ""Paul's" Letter" to Hebrews often uses "rest" in a sense similar to
                                  the sense it is found in Thomas and Matthew 11:28-29. Otherwise
                                  not in the NT.

                                  If you do not know about the WWW Bible Gateway it is
                                  a wonderful source for word-searches. I use it daily.
                                  http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible

                                  Another wonderful source for word-searches is
                                  http://www.webcom.com/cgi-bin/glimpse
                                  which will give you citations from every early Christian text and
                                  gnostic text you ever heard of and a hundred more.

                                  One could write a whole dissertation on "rest" from these
                                  two resources alone.

                                  > Any recommendations for further reading about 'resting'? (Wasn't someone
                                  > asking about GThomas and baptism - slightly curious if baptism is in mind

                                  Davies on Baptism in Thomas
                                  http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/seven.htm
                                  some folks think this is a pretty strong case... I don't anymore.

                                  > why - as I remember it - maybe wrong - there is no mention of either the
                                  > Jordan or Spirit - is Spirit mentioned in GThomas at all?)

                                  Alas, no. Implied in 13/108 if you make an enormous effort.

                                  Steve
                                • y.kuchinsky@utoronto.ca
                                  ... Steve, It is the category prophet/healer that is in doubt AFAIC. The real question in my mind would be, Would he have been primarily a prophet, or a
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Sep 15 10:41 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Stevan Davies wrote:

                                    >
                                    > > From: y.kuchinsky
                                    >
                                    > > The difficulty here as I see it is as follows. One may get a suspicion
                                    > > that you may have designed your categories of "prophet/healer" and
                                    > > "pentecostal" just in such a way so that there will be a fundamental
                                    > > difference between them
                                    >
                                    > You can blend them together if you like by changing the nature
                                    > of the discussion and so we can agree that the origins of
                                    > Christianity are such that there was one prophet/healer and then,
                                    > some time after His death, there were hundreds.

                                    Steve,

                                    It is the category prophet/healer that is in doubt AFAIC. The real
                                    question in my mind would be, Would he have been primarily a prophet, or a
                                    healer?

                                    > > -- just such a difference that will need this
                                    > > seemingly problematic shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy to have taken place.
                                    > > In other words, the question may be asked, Is this
                                    > > shift/Pentecost/Zublilch thingy really so necessary for understanding
                                    > > early evolution of the Christian movement? Perhaps dispensing with the
                                    > > thingy may clarify things more than will be the case otherwise?
                                    >
                                    > It's not only unnecessary (logically) but downright annoying. I would
                                    > prefer to have good evidence that Jesus brought about spirit
                                    > accredited ASC experiences in his followers and not to have to
                                    > have this happen after his death. Do you have any good evidence
                                    > to this effect?

                                    Of course. The healings themselves would provide good evidence that those
                                    "healed" were probably so on the basis of their accredited ASC
                                    experiences.

                                    > If not, then we are still stuck with a man who was
                                    > said to be a prophet and a healer

                                    But what was his primary function? We would need to answer this to
                                    understand the Historical Jesus.

                                    > and to have the spirit and around
                                    > whom a group gathered and, when he died, the members of that group
                                    > collectively adopted the roles he formerly occupied uniquely.

                                    Why uniquely? There were no other healers in Israel? Or other prophets?

                                    > At the moment that's what all the reliable evidence tells me happened.
                                    > (I'll point out that even if I adopt your interpolations and dating
                                    > hypotheses all that occurs is the movement of the shift/pentecost back a
                                    > couple generations.

                                    If you accepted my interpolation hypothesis, you would have an easier time
                                    showing that the real Paul was "pentecostal".

                                    > The same "it was this and became that" historiography will pertain.)

                                    The shift seems to be in question. I don't see any major shift such as you
                                    outlined. OTOH I see a shift from the primarily Jewish to primarily
                                    gentile-oriented traditions. This was a really big and important shift.
                                    But it seems to be invisible in your analysis.

                                    Regards,

                                    Yuri.
                                  • Mahlon H. Smith
                                    ... Steve: Please check the URL on this or give me the name of the site. I keep getting a search failed notice when I enter the URL above. Thanks, Mahlon --
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Sep 16 6:34 AM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Stevan Davies wrote to Jacob Knee:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Another wonderful source for word-searches is
                                      > http://www.webcom.com/cgi-bin/glimpse
                                      > which will give you citations from every early Christian text and
                                      > gnostic text you ever heard of and a hundred more.
                                      >

                                      Steve:

                                      Please check the URL on this or give me the name of the site. I keep
                                      getting a "search failed" notice when I enter the URL above.

                                      Thanks,

                                      Mahlon

                                      --

                                      *********************

                                      Mahlon H. Smith,
                                      Associate Professor
                                      Department of Religion
                                      Rutgers University
                                      New Brunswick NJ

                                      http://religion.rutgers.edu/mhsmith.html
                                    • Stevan Davies
                                      ... I must have cut-and-pasted the address from a search I did and not from the form itself. Form itself is http://www.gnosis.org/gnosis/search_form.html It s
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Sep 16 11:57 AM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > Stevan Davies wrote to Jacob Knee:
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Another wonderful source for word-searches is

                                        > > which will give you citations from every early Christian text and
                                        > > gnostic text you ever heard of and a hundred more.
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > Steve:
                                        >
                                        > Please check the URL on this or give me the name of the site. I keep
                                        > getting a "search failed" notice when I enter the URL above.
                                        >
                                        > Thanks,
                                        >
                                        > Mahlon

                                        I must have cut-and-pasted the address from a search I did
                                        and not from the form itself. Form itself is

                                        http://www.gnosis.org/gnosis/search_form.html

                                        It's a grand resource. If this address doesn't work, lemme
                                        know and I'll keep trying.

                                        Steve
                                      • Jacob Knee
                                        Just a quick note to say thanks for the URLs and reference to your piece on Thomas and baptism. best wishes, Jacob
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Sep 18 6:26 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Just a quick note to say thanks for the URLs and reference to your piece on
                                          Thomas and baptism.

                                          best wishes,
                                          Jacob

                                          > -----Original Message-----
                                          > From: owner-crosstalk@...
                                          > [mailto:owner-crosstalk@...]On Behalf Of Stevan
                                          > Davies
                                          > Sent: 12 September 1998 21:49
                                          > To: crosstalk@...
                                          > Subject: Re: rest/Jordan (GT 2)
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > > From: "Jacob Knee"
                                          >
                                          > > Can anyone recommend anything written on the theological use of
                                          > the concept
                                          > > of 'rest' in early christianity.
                                          >
                                          > ""Paul's" Letter" to Hebrews often uses "rest" in a sense similar to
                                          > the sense it is found in Thomas and Matthew 11:28-29. Otherwise
                                          > not in the NT.
                                          >
                                          > If you do not know about the WWW Bible Gateway it is
                                          > a wonderful source for word-searches. I use it daily.
                                          > http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible
                                          >
                                          > Another wonderful source for word-searches is
                                          > http://www.webcom.com/cgi-bin/glimpse
                                          > which will give you citations from every early Christian text and
                                          > gnostic text you ever heard of and a hundred more.
                                          >
                                          > One could write a whole dissertation on "rest" from these
                                          > two resources alone.
                                          >
                                          > > Any recommendations for further reading about 'resting'? (Wasn't someone
                                          > > asking about GThomas and baptism - slightly curious if baptism
                                          > is in mind
                                          >
                                          > Davies on Baptism in Thomas
                                          > http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/seven.htm
                                          > some folks think this is a pretty strong case... I don't anymore.
                                          >
                                          > > why - as I remember it - maybe wrong - there is no mention of either the
                                          > > Jordan or Spirit - is Spirit mentioned in GThomas at all?)
                                          >
                                          > Alas, no. Implied in 13/108 if you make an enormous effort.
                                          >
                                          > Steve
                                          >
                                        • Paul Miller
                                          Steve wrote: Davies on Baptism in Thomas http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/seven.htm some folks think this is a pretty strong case... I don t anymore. ...
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Sep 18 8:13 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Steve wrote:
                                            Davies on Baptism in Thomas
                                            http://www.miseri.edu/davies/thomas/seven.htm
                                            some folks think this is a pretty strong case... I don't anymore.
                                            ---------------------

                                            Steve have your views on GThomas changed significantly from some of your
                                            material posted on the GThomas Homepage? If so could you give us a summary
                                            of what those changes are?

                                            Thanks.
                                            Paul Miller
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.