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

Jesus and his death (was a number of other things)

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a correspondence with Mark Goodacre, Stevan Davies wrote: STEVAN: Since I assume we can agree that Jesus did not have a Passion-oriented perspective, then
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 29, 1998
      In a correspondence with Mark Goodacre, Stevan Davies wrote:

      STEVAN: Since I assume we can agree that Jesus did not have a Passion-oriented
      perspective, then that aspect of Q doesn't give us new information
      that common-sense didn't already give us about the HJ.

      LEONARD: I hope I haven't cited the above too much out of context, but I do
      have a problem with this statement of Stevan. Can it simply and certainly be
      stated that Jesus did not have a passion-oriented perspective? The threefold
      (actually, in Matt, the five-fold) passion predictions in the Synoptic
      tradition certainly reflect some post-Easter development, but is it likely,
      even historically, that Jesus thought nothing about the possibility of an
      impending death? Is a future violent death not a possibility that would have
      been logically suggested to anyone by some of the more virulent opposition to
      Jesus' message and work, which may have begun even relatively early in his
      ministry? And what about the death of John the Baptist? Am I being hopelessly
      naive here? Or is my "common sense" just different from Stevan's?

      Leonard Maluf
    • Bob Schacht
      ... Passion-oriented ... Perhaps it is different , but I agree with you. Bob
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 29, 1998
        At 06:59 AM 10/29/98 -0500, Maluflen@... wrote:
        >In a correspondence with Mark Goodacre, Stevan Davies wrote:
        >
        >STEVAN: Since I assume we can agree that Jesus did not have a
        Passion-oriented
        >perspective, then that aspect of Q doesn't give us new information
        >that common-sense didn't already give us about the HJ.
        >
        >LEONARD: I hope I haven't cited the above too much out of context, but I do
        >have a problem with this statement of Stevan. Can it simply and certainly be
        >stated that Jesus did not have a passion-oriented perspective? The threefold
        >(actually, in Matt, the five-fold) passion predictions in the Synoptic
        >tradition certainly reflect some post-Easter development, but is it likely,
        >even historically, that Jesus thought nothing about the possibility of an
        >impending death? Is a future violent death not a possibility that would have
        >been logically suggested to anyone by some of the more virulent opposition to
        >Jesus' message and work, which may have begun even relatively early in his
        >ministry? And what about the death of John the Baptist? Am I being hopelessly
        >naive here? Or is my "common sense" just different from Stevan's?
        >
        >Leonard Maluf
        >

        Perhaps it is "different", but I agree with you.
        Bob
      • Jeff Peterson
        ... The suggestion of Leonard and Bob that Jesus reflected on the possibility and significance of his death finds support in the strong multiple attestation of
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 29, 1998
          >In a correspondence with Mark Goodacre, Stevan Davies wrote:
          >
          >STEVAN: Since I assume we can agree that Jesus did not have a Passion-oriented
          >perspective, then that aspect of Q doesn't give us new information
          >that common-sense didn't already give us about the HJ.
          >
          >LEONARD: . . . Can it simply and certainly be
          >stated that Jesus did not have a passion-oriented perspective? The threefold
          >(actually, in Matt, the five-fold) passion predictions in the Synoptic
          >tradition certainly reflect some post-Easter development, but is it likely,
          >even historically, that Jesus thought nothing about the possibility of an
          >impending death? Is a future violent death not a possibility that would have
          >been logically suggested to anyone by some of the more virulent opposition to
          >Jesus' message and work, which may have begun even relatively early in his
          >ministry? And what about the death of John the Baptist?

          The suggestion of Leonard and Bob that Jesus reflected on the possibility
          and significance of his death finds support in the strong multiple
          attestation of the Last Supper tradition, appearing both in the Synoptics
          and in Paul (1 Cor 11:23ff) with a couple of veiled allusions in John
          chaps. 6 and 13. The tradition Paul retails is presented as a report he
          "received," which read by analogy with 15:3ff would suggest Paul's
          introduction to the Christian community (ca. 33) as the terminus ad quem;
          Paul's fortnight in Cephas' home (Gal 1:18) -- involving conversation in
          subjects other than the weather, as C.H. Dodd liked to say -- apparently
          did nothing to disconfirm this tradition. The case is fully prosecuted by
          E. P. Sanders (in Sanders and Davies, _Studying the Synoptic Gospels_, p.
          329), who concludes that "This is my body" and some form of the saying over
          the wine are "as reliable as any in the gospels" (p. 330).

          Jeff

          Jeffrey Peterson
          Institute for Christian Studies
          Austin, Texas, USA
        • Stevan Davies
          JEFF ... How about Paul would say his Gospel was in accord with that of prior followers rather than derived by tradition from them? He derived it from
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 30, 1998
            JEFF
            > What makes sense of the apparently conflicting statements in Gal and 1 Cor
            > is Paul's finding in his visionary encounter with Christ confirmation of
            > claims made about him by his followers; knew something about the claims
            > before the vision (enough to know he opposed them) and learned more after.
            > So Paul would say his Gospel was derived by tradition from prior followers
            > of Christ (clearly the case in 1 Cor 15:1-11) and also that it was given to
            > Paul as something to proclaim by Christ himself.

            How about "Paul would say his Gospel was in accord with that of
            prior followers" rather than "derived by tradition from" them? He
            derived it from Christ in him. (We may indeed sceptically conclude
            that this derivation was not uninfluenced by his own prior knowledge
            of the outlaws he persecuted).

            > If Mark's supper narrative is derived from Paul, would the variation
            > between "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (Paul, Luke long
            > reading) and "This is my blood of the covenant" (Mark, Matt) be Marcan
            > redaction retained by Matthew, or an oral tradition -- and if the latter,
            > Pauline or extra-Pauline? Is a derivation of the Eucharist from Paul alone
            > sufficient to account for the widespread practice reflected in Ignatius and
            > Justin? I'm doubtful.

            Didache too. It's all over the place. John deconstructs it. But it
            started somewhere. Whether Jesus or Paul began it is the question.
            Or maybe somebody else.

            We have a ritual meal among Christians. Point of it is to be in
            remembrance of Jesus. It seems to be something of a general principle
            within religious praxis to attribute central rituals to the
            foundational ordinances or behaviors of the founder. So at time
            X the words of institution became normative. Once normative they
            would I think automatically have been attributed to Jesus. That they
            were deliberately uttered by Jesus in order to institute a ritual
            within later Christianity seems dubious... at minimum it would
            presuppose that Jesus regarded himself as a covenant sacrifice.
            The phrase
            "This is my blood of the covenant" is, I would say, meaningless in
            Mark. Nothing leads up to it, it has nothing to do with anything
            that Jesus has been quoted as saying. Probably so too for Matthew
            and Luke. It is without meaning in textual context. Thus, the
            evangelists have views of what Jesus was up to but being a
            covenant sacrifice isn't among them. From this one would assume
            that while the evangelists knew of the saying and, I'm quite sure,
            knew their readers would find it familiar they do not themselves
            present any reason to think that it derives from Jesus' own
            perspective on things for, when they try to deliniate that
            perspective, the saying is foreign to it.

            Perhaps if we look to find an early Christian apostle with the
            view that Jesus was indeed a covenant sacrifice we shall come
            up with Paul.

            Steve
          • Jeff Peterson
            ... I think the analogy of MLK is helpful, and illustrates a failing in some historical Jesus scholarship which draws a firm line between Jesus own ministry
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 30, 1998
              At 5:08 PM 10/29/98, Stevan Davies wrote:
              >STEVE
              >I think of Martin Luther King. Perhaps Rev. King was aware of the
              >substantial possibility of assassination. Perhaps he mentioned it
              >more than once.
              >To think that this was a significant part of his intention or life's
              >work or "message" does not follow. Nor does it allow one to
              >assert a "passion oriented perspective" for Rev. King. Not his
              >own passion anyhow.

              I think the analogy of MLK is helpful, and illustrates a failing in some
              historical Jesus scholarship which draws a firm line between Jesus' own
              ministry and the movement which continued after his death. I.e., Jesus
              like King led a movement committed to certain goals, values, etc.; his
              death was in some sense in behalf of these commitments -- or at least was
              so understood by his followers and (we're discussing the possibility) by
              himself;

              >
              >JEFF
              >> The suggestion of Leonard and Bob that Jesus reflected on the possibility
              >> and significance of his death finds support in the strong multiple
              >> attestation of the Last Supper tradition, appearing both in the Synoptics
              >> and in Paul (1 Cor 11:23ff) with a couple of veiled allusions in John
              >> chaps. 6 and 13. The tradition Paul retails is presented as a report he
              >> "received," which read by analogy with 15:3ff would suggest Paul's
              >> introduction to the Christian community (ca. 33) as the terminus ad quem;
              >
              >He received the tradition "from the Lord" which, one should, I think,
              >understand in terms of a private revelation and not from the lips of
              >Jesus. He did not receive it "from the apostles" or whatever unless
              >he equates the apostles etc. with "the Lord." He doesn't do this
              >in Gal 1-2 anyhow.

              The APO clearly indicates that the tradition derives ultimately from Jesus,
              but not necessarily that he was its immediate source (e.g., in a vision);
              one might compare uses of APO in reference to lines of succession and
              descent, often at several removes.

              What makes sense of the apparently conflicting statements in Gal and 1 Cor
              is Paul's finding in his visionary encounter with Christ confirmation of
              claims made about him by his followers; knew something about the claims
              before the vision (enough to know he opposed them) and learned more after.
              So Paul would say his Gospel was derived by tradition from prior followers
              of Christ (clearly the case in 1 Cor 15:1-11) and also that it was given to
              Paul as something to proclaim by Christ himself.

              If Mark's supper narrative is derived from Paul, would the variation
              between "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (Paul, Luke long
              reading) and "This is my blood of the covenant" (Mark, Matt) be Marcan
              redaction retained by Matthew, or an oral tradition -- and if the latter,
              Pauline or extra-Pauline? Is a derivation of the Eucharist from Paul alone
              sufficient to account for the widespread practice reflected in Ignatius and
              Justin? I'm doubtful.

              Jeff


              Jeffrey Peterson
              Institute for Christian Studies
              Austin, Texas, USA
            • Jeff Peterson
              ... STEVE ... Don t think this will account for 1 Cor 15:1-11, where Paul s preaching of Christ is (1) in subsantial agreement with the 12, brothers of the
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 2, 1998
                At 5:53 PM 10/30/98, Stevan Davies wrote:
                >JEFF
                >> What makes sense of the apparently conflicting statements in Gal and 1 Cor
                >> is Paul's finding in his visionary encounter with Christ confirmation of
                >> claims made about him by his followers; knew something about the claims
                >> before the vision (enough to know he opposed them) and learned more after.
                >> So Paul would say his Gospel was derived by tradition from prior followers
                >> of Christ (clearly the case in 1 Cor 15:1-11) and also that it was given to
                >> Paul as something to proclaim by Christ himself.

                STEVE
                >How about "Paul would say his Gospel was in accord with that of
                >prior followers" rather than "derived by tradition from" them? He
                >derived it from Christ in him. (We may indeed sceptically conclude
                >that this derivation was not uninfluenced by his own prior knowledge
                >of the outlaws he persecuted).

                Don't think this will account for 1 Cor 15:1-11, where Paul's preaching of
                Christ is (1) in subsantial agreement with the 12, brothers of the Lord,
                all the apostles; and (2) derivative from somebody (PARELABON) in a chain
                of tradition which Paul extended (PAREDWKA) at the outset of the
                Corinthians' Christian experience (EN PRWTOIS). The most natural reading of
                this is that Paul's understanding of the Gospel was derivative, though not
                his apostolic commission, which he received from the risen Christ himself
                (v. 8). The rhetorical aim in 1 Cor is to hold his converts accountable to
                apostolic tradition (the strategy is evident from 1:2b, "called . . .
                together with all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"); a
                different rhetorical aim is pursued in Gal, that of establishing Paul's
                relative missionary independence from Jerusalem authorities (which still
                includes the admission hISTORHSAI KEFAN). It's in this context that Paul
                goes so far as to say that his EUAGGELION is "neither from men nor through
                a man." It's a mistake to take this as a neutral statement of historical
                fact and dismiss the Corinthian statements as rhetorical contrivances; both
                are rhetorically motivated summaries of a complex chain of events. I
                propose that the reconstruction sketched above saves all the evidence.

                JEFF
                Is a derivation of the Eucharist from Paul alone
                >> sufficient to account for the widespread practice reflected in Ignatius and
                >> Justin? I'm doubtful.
                >
                STEVE
                >Didache too. It's all over the place. John deconstructs it. But it
                >started somewhere. Whether Jesus or Paul began it is the question.
                >Or maybe somebody else.

                "Deconstructs" doesn't seem right for John's appropriation of the supper
                tradition; more like "shows how the incarnation is implicated in the
                supper," or vice versa.

                >We have a ritual meal among Christians. Point of it is to be in
                >remembrance of Jesus. It seems to be something of a general principle
                >within religious praxis to attribute central rituals to the
                >foundational ordinances or behaviors of the founder. So at time
                >X the words of institution became normative. Once normative they
                >would I think automatically have been attributed to Jesus. That they
                >were deliberately uttered by Jesus in order to institute a ritual
                >within later Christianity seems dubious

                If "among his followers" is substituted for "within later Christianity,"
                this looks much less implausible. Jesus need not have envisioned the Canon
                of the Mass and the Sarum Use to have anticipated his death and acted
                dramatically to preserve the fellowship of disciples that he had created.

                >... at minimum it would
                >presuppose that Jesus regarded himself as a covenant sacrifice.
                >The phrase
                >"This is my blood of the covenant" is, I would say, meaningless in
                >Mark. Nothing leads up to it, it has nothing to do with anything
                >that Jesus has been quoted as saying. Probably so too for Matthew
                >and Luke. It is without meaning in textual context.

                "Blood of the covenant" is a development of "ransom for many," which in
                turn forms the culmination of Jesus' third preparatory instruction
                regarding the significance of his death and resurrection (Mark 10:32-45) --
                retained in Matthew, muted in Luke (which also omits the "blood of the
                covenant" reference if the shorter text of 22:19f is prior, as probably; is
                Acts 20:28 an instance of fatigue, or is the metaphor not sacrificial and
                therefore acceptable to Luke?).

                The composite Isaiah citation that opens Mark sets the stage for this
                understanding of Jesus' death: Yahweh's way to Zion = new exodus = Jesus'
                way to the cross. 1 Cor provides evidence that someone with hISTORHSAI
                KEFAN on his résumé promulgated the derivation of such an interpretation
                from Jesus himself.

                >
                >Perhaps if we look to find an early Christian apostle with the
                >view that Jesus was indeed a covenant sacrifice we shall come
                >up with Paul.
                >

                Paul is clearly the earliest documented source for such an interpretation
                (as for any form of Christianity, on the standard reckoning). The question
                is whether he originated it (of which he was certainly capable) or
                inherited it (as the use of PARALAMBANEIN APO TOU KYRIOU seems to support).

                Jeff

                Jeffrey Peterson
                Institute for Christian Studies
                Austin, Texas, USA
              • Stevan Davies
                JEFF ... Yes, these two seem to be Mark s bottom line interpretation of his gospel. But I see no connection between the two. I would welcome some light on
                Message 7 of 11 , Nov 3, 1998
                  JEFF
                  > >... at minimum it would
                  > >presuppose that Jesus regarded himself as a covenant sacrifice.
                  > >The phrase
                  > >"This is my blood of the covenant" is, I would say, meaningless in
                  > >Mark. Nothing leads up to it, it has nothing to do with anything
                  > >that Jesus has been quoted as saying. Probably so too for Matthew
                  > >and Luke. It is without meaning in textual context.
                  >
                  > "Blood of the covenant" is a development of "ransom for many," which in
                  > turn forms the culmination of Jesus' third preparatory instruction
                  > regarding the significance of his death and resurrection (Mark 10:32-45) --

                  Yes, these two seem to be Mark's "bottom line" interpretation of his
                  gospel. But I see no connection between the two.
                  I would welcome some light on the relationship of "ransom for many"
                  and "blood of the covenant." How is a covenant sacrifice a ransom
                  for many? Ransom from what? Paid to whom? Can you, WITHOUT
                  bringing in Paul's theories on these subjects, make sense of them for
                  me? In other words, how are they not meaningless as they stand in
                  Mark?

                  > The composite Isaiah citation that opens Mark sets the stage for this
                  > understanding of Jesus' death: Yahweh's way to Zion = new exodus = Jesus'
                  > way to the cross.

                  Are you citing "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare
                  your way ... a voice of one calling in the desert, `Prepare the way for
                  the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" ? I sure don't see "new
                  exodus" in this, much less "Yahweh's way to Zion." Mark is NOT about
                  "Yahweh's way to Zion" to be sure. It is about "Jesus' way to the cross"
                  of course. How Markan protagonists are supposed to "make straight
                  paths" for this is obscure to me.

                  > 1 Cor provides evidence that someone with hISTORHSAI
                  > KEFAN on his resume promulgated the derivation of such an interpretation
                  > from Jesus himself.

                  > Paul is clearly the earliest documented source for such an interpretation
                  > (as for any form of Christianity, on the standard reckoning). The question
                  > is whether he originated it (of which he was certainly capable) or
                  > inherited it (as the use of PARALAMBANEIN APO TOU KYRIOU seems
                  > to support).

                  Paul's appeal to authority seems to be specifically focused on
                  a) died
                  b) rose
                  c) both in accordance with the scriptures.

                  There is no interpretation involved. The authorities involved are
                  1. That Paul received the statements.
                  2. That scripture provides a justification for the events, i.e. they
                  happened because scripture said they would happen. [Matthew,
                  e.g., thinks this way about "in accordance with the scriptures.]
                  3. That eyewitnesses confirm that the events happened.

                  I don't see that any of this supports the idea that Paul's
                  interpretation was derived from prior individuals. Appeal is
                  to the historicity and scriptural prediction of the events... which
                  then are interpreted by Paul in accordance with Paul so far
                  as I can tell.

                  Steve
                • Jacob Knee
                  Testing, testing....anyone there
                  Message 8 of 11 , Nov 7, 1998
                    Testing, testing....anyone there
                  • Robert McAllistar
                    Caesar demands a sacrifice every now and then, doesn t he? ... See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk/?start=3368 -- Free e-mail
                    Message 9 of 11 , Nov 7, 1998
                      Caesar demands a sacrifice every now and then, doesn't he?

                      > JEFF
                      > > >... at minimum it would
                      > > >presuppose that Jesus regarded himself as a covenant sacrifice.
                      > > >The phrase
                      > > >"This is my blood of the covenant" is, I would say, meaningless in
                      > > >Mark. Nothing leads up to it, it has nothing to do with anything
                      > > >that Jesus has been quoted as saying. Probably so too for Matthew
                      > > >and Luke. It is without meaning in textual context.
                      > >
                      > > "Blood of the covenant" is a development of "ransom for many," which in
                      > > turn forms the culmination of Jesus' third preparatory instruction
                      > > regarding the significance of his death and resurrection (Mark 10:32-45) --
                      >
                      > Yes, these two seem to be Mark's "bottom line" interpretation of his
                      > gospel. But I see no connection between the two.
                      > I would welcome some light on the relationship of "ransom for many"
                      > and "blood of the covenant." How is a covenant sacrifice a ransom
                      > for many? Ransom from what? Paid to whom? Can you, WITHOUT
                      > bringing in Paul's theories on these subjects, make sense of them for
                      > me? In other words, how are they not meaningless as they stand in
                      > Mark?
                      >
                      > > The composite Isaiah citation that opens Mark sets the stage for this
                      > > understanding of Jesus' death: Yahweh's way to Zion = new exodus = Jesus'
                      > > way to the cross.
                      >
                      > Are you citing "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare
                      > your way ... a voice of one calling in the desert, `Prepare the way for
                      > the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" ? I sure don't see "new
                      > exodus" in this, much less "Yahweh's way to Zion." Mark is NOT about
                      > "Yahweh's way to Zion" to be sure. It is about "Jesus' way to the cross"
                      > of course. How Markan protagonists are supposed to "make straight
                      > paths" for this is obscure to me.
                      >
                      > > 1 Cor provides evidence that someone with hISTORHSAI
                      > > KEFAN on his resume promulgated the derivation of such an interpretation
                      > > from Jesus himself.
                      >
                      > > Paul is clearly the earliest documented source for such an interpretation
                      > > (as for any form of Christianity, on the standard reckoning). The question
                      > > is whether he originated it (of which he was certainly capable) or
                      > > inherited it (as the use of PARALAMBANEIN APO TOU KYRIOU seems
                      > > to support).
                      >
                      > Paul's appeal to authority seems to be specifically focused on
                      > a) died
                      > b) rose
                      > c) both in accordance with the scriptures.
                      >
                      > There is no interpretation involved. The authorities involved are
                      > 1. That Paul received the statements.
                      > 2. That scripture provides a justification for the events, i.e. they
                      > happened because scripture said they would happen. [Matthew,
                      > e.g., thinks this way about "in accordance with the scriptures.]
                      > 3. That eyewitnesses confirm that the events happened.
                      >
                      > I don't see that any of this supports the idea that Paul's
                      > interpretation was derived from prior individuals. Appeal is
                      > to the historicity and scriptural prediction of the events... which
                      > then are interpreted by Paul in accordance with Paul so far
                      > as I can tell.
                      >
                      > Steve
                      >
                      >
                      >



                      -----
                      See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk/?start=3368
                      --
                      Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/
                    • Bob Schacht
                      Halloween is gone from our streets but resideth still in the CrossTalk web server. I m making another attempt to post this. Please excuse if it duplicates. Bob
                      Message 10 of 11 , Nov 7, 1998
                        Halloween is gone from our streets but resideth still in the CrossTalk web
                        server. I'm making another attempt to post this. Please excuse if it
                        duplicates.
                        Bob

                        At 04:53 PM 11/3/98 -0400, Stevan Davies wrote:
                        >
                        >JEFF
                        >> >... at minimum it would
                        >> >presuppose that Jesus regarded himself as a covenant sacrifice.
                        >> >The phrase
                        >> >"This is my blood of the covenant" is, I would say, meaningless in
                        >> >Mark. Nothing leads up to it, it has nothing to do with anything
                        >> >that Jesus has been quoted as saying. Probably so too for Matthew
                        >> >and Luke. It is without meaning in textual context.
                        >>
                        >> "Blood of the covenant" is a development of "ransom for many," which in
                        >> turn forms the culmination of Jesus' third preparatory instruction
                        >> regarding the significance of his death and resurrection (Mark 10:32-45) --
                        >
                        >Yes, these two seem to be Mark's "bottom line" interpretation of his
                        >gospel. But I see no connection between the two.
                        >I would welcome some light on the relationship of "ransom for many"
                        >and "blood of the covenant." How is a covenant sacrifice a ransom
                        >for many? Ransom from what? Paid to whom? Can you, WITHOUT
                        >bringing in Paul's theories on these subjects, make sense of them for
                        >me? In other words, how are they not meaningless as they stand in
                        >Mark? ...

                        Well, I dunno, but I'll try. Clearly this is an "atonement" issue, which is
                        traditionally about as difficult to explain as the trinity. The most
                        helpful source I have to deal with this question is the article on
                        atonement in Achtemeier's Bible Dictionary. Here's the key lead: Atonement
                        is "the means by which the guilt-punishment chain produced by violation of
                        God's will is broken, as well as the resulting state of reconciliation
                        ('at-onement') with God." The guilt-punishment chain is already well
                        established in the Torah, what with the Golden Calf and the grumblings in
                        the desert. What evolved in Jewish/Israelite ritual to deal with this was
                        the Sin Offerings. But the Scape Goat provides an imprecise model for the
                        NT, as is well known.

                        A key link in the *evolution* of ideas about atonement was when "the
                        atonement base was broadened to include the sacrifice of martyrs whose
                        achievements were calculated and deemed meritorious for others (e.g., 4
                        Macc. 6:28-29; 17:20-24). My New Revised Standard Version introduction to 4
                        Macc. notes that "Possibly it was first delivered as an oration at a
                        festival commemorating the Maccabean martyrs or at the Feast of the
                        Dedication..." The author's theology has two special characteristics, one
                        of which is that "The martyrdoms are a substitutionary atonement that
                        expiates the nation's sin and purifies the land (1.11; 17.21; 18.4)." The
                        date of the text cannot be pinned down with precision: "The most that can
                        be said with certainty is that it was written sometime between the end of
                        the Hasmonean dynasty in 63 B.C. and the destruction of the Jerusalem
                        temple in A.D. 70." It has frequently been assigned to the period A.D.
                        20-54. At the very least, therefore, there is a good chance that it dates
                        before the public life of Jesus, and even if it doesn't, it enhances the
                        likelihood that this idea was circulating at the time of Jesus' life even
                        if it had not yet been written down.

                        Now, to your questions:
                        "How is a covenant sacrifice a ransom for many?" A covenant sacrifice
                        serves to restore the covenant (Abrahamic + Exodus) between God and his
                        chosen people (the many).

                        "Ransom from what?" Interesting that you write "what"; I would have thought
                        you would write "whom". But since you write "what", I'll guess "what" =
                        sin, the sort of stuff that J the B was preaching about, and that the Sin
                        Offerings were in reference to.

                        "Paid to whom?" You're trying to take literally what was intended as
                        metaphor. It is as if you want a specific sum of money to be named, along
                        with a legal document about the Party of the First Part and the Party of
                        the Second Part. But I think this misses the meaning of the Tanakh about
                        this. With the Scape Goat, the answer was on the order of "paid to God".
                        But when we start talking martyrdom, the theology of this has evolved:

                        4 Maccabees 6:26-30
                        26 When he was now burned to his very bones and about to expire, he lifted
                        up his eyes to God and said,
                        27 "You know, O God, that though I might have saved myself, I am dying in
                        burning torments for the sake of the law.
                        28 Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them.
                        29 Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs."
                        30 After he said this, the holy man died...

                        4 Macc. 17:21b
                        21 ...they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation.
                        22 And through the blood of these devout ones and their death as an atoning
                        sacrifice...


                        >Can you, WITHOUT
                        >bringing in Paul's theories on these subjects, make sense of them for
                        >me?

                        Well, I did without Paul's theories on these subjects, but whether or not
                        this makes sense of them for you, you'll havta say for yourself.

                        Bob
                        Robert Schacht
                        Northern Arizona University
                        Robert.Schacht@...

                        "This success of my endeavors was due, I believe, to a rule of 'method':
                        that we should always try to clarify and to strengthen our opponent's
                        position as much as possible before criticizing him, if we wish our
                        criticism to be worth while." [Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific
                        Discovery (1968), p. 260 n.*5]
                      • Stevan Davies
                        ... Well, now, I do find this very enlightening. Sure sounds like the same line of thought as in Mark and you didn t need Paul. I always thought you did. But
                        Message 11 of 11 , Nov 8, 1998
                          >
                          > From: Bob Schacht
                          Bob Schacht wrote:

                          > 4 Maccabees 6:26-30
                          > 26 When he was now burned to his very bones and about to expire, he lifted
                          > up his eyes to God and said,
                          > 27 "You know, O God, that though I might have saved myself, I am dying in
                          > burning torments for the sake of the law.
                          > 28 Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them.
                          > 29 Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs."
                          > 30 After he said this, the holy man died...
                          >
                          > 4 Macc. 17:21b
                          > 21 ...they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation.
                          > 22 And through the blood of these devout ones and their death as an atoning
                          > sacrifice...
                          >
                          > >Can you, WITHOUT
                          > >bringing in Paul's theories on these subjects, make sense of them for
                          > >me?
                          >
                          > Well, I did without Paul's theories on these subjects, but whether or not
                          > this makes sense of them for you, you'll havta say for yourself.

                          Well, now, I do find this very enlightening. Sure sounds like the
                          same line of thought as in Mark and you didn't need Paul.
                          I always thought you did. But you don't.

                          Steve
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.