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

Re: [XTalk] Hebrew Quotations

Expand Messages
  • Zeba Crook
    ... Yikes, could you make more clear that you ve altered my post here? ... How is what I said unclear? Mal 3:1 plus Isa 40:3 is not *Isaiah*, is it? ...
    Message 1 of 16 , Nov 27, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Paulsen family wrote:

      > Zeba wrote...
      >
      > >Mark 1:2-3 claims to quote Isaiah. We *all know* (dangerous assumptioun)
      > you can't find that passage in Isaiah.

      Yikes, could you make more clear that you've altered my post here?

      > What about the combination of Mal 3:1 and Is 40:3???

      How is what I said unclear? Mal 3:1 plus Isa 40:3 is not *Isaiah*, is it?

      > >Luke 4:18-19 claims that Jesus unrolled the scroll and read
      > >from "the place where it is written." There is no *place* where this was
      > written,
      >
      > What about Is 61:1-2??

      Again, what Jesus reads comes from 61:1-2 plus (and moving backwards) 58:6. There
      is no single place (the implication of Luke's description) where the words that
      Jesus read are written.

      I'd have thought the examples I gave were 'no brainers."
    • Paulsen family
      Zeba wrote... ... assumptioun) ... Yeah, sorry about that. Just after I sent it, I wondered how I should have emphasized my additions to that. No, Malachi +
      Message 2 of 16 , Nov 27, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Zeba wrote...

        > > >Mark 1:2-3 claims to quote Isaiah. We *all know* (dangerous
        assumptioun)
        > > you can't find that passage in Isaiah.
        >
        > Yikes, could you make more clear that you've altered my post here?


        Yeah, sorry about that. Just after I sent it, I wondered how I should have
        emphasized my additions to that.

        No, Malachi + Isaiah is obviously not the same as Isaiah *only*, but just
        as obviously Isaiah is quoted here. Your original post *implied* [or at
        least left open the *inference*] that "this passage" (i.e. what Mark stated)
        was not to be found in Isaiah.

        I have read that, when quoting from, or alluding to, a combination of OT
        sources (especially 'major' and 'minor' prophets), the Gospel writers (and
        others???) would simply conflate them under the name of the 'major' prophet.
        I cannot for the life of me trace this right now - does this sound familiar
        to anyone?

        > Again, what Jesus reads comes from 61:1-2 plus (and moving backwards)
        58:6. There
        > is no single place (the implication of Luke's description) where the words
        that
        > Jesus read are written.
        >
        > I'd have thought the examples I gave were 'no brainers."

        To shift from your original posts' statement ... >>"Luke 4:18-19 claims
        that Jesus unrolled the scroll and read from "the place where it is
        written." There is no *place* where this was written," to qualifying your
        statement with *no single place* is quite a leap, but a welcome
        clarification.

        Thinking about it, though...on a scroll, would it be that far to go from Is
        61 to 56?
        Could not *place* be nowhere near as narrow or literal as you are intending
        it? With no chapter/verse divisions to go by, what would constitute *place*
        in the context of a synagogue reading? I can open my Bible and read from
        several chapters at once without even turning a page and I could still say
        "I read from the place where it says....".

        Perhaps the examples you gave were "no brainers", but perhaps they could
        also benefit from some clarification and precision.

        Patrick Paulsen
        Oakville Ontario



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Zeba Crook" <zeba.crook@...>
        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 11:12 AM
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Hebrew Quotations


        > Paulsen family wrote:
        >
        > > Zeba wrote...
        > >
        > > >Mark 1:2-3 claims to quote Isaiah. We *all know* (dangerous
        assumptioun)
        > > you can't find that passage in Isaiah.
        >
        > Yikes, could you make more clear that you've altered my post here?
        >
        > > What about the combination of Mal 3:1 and Is 40:3???
        >
        > How is what I said unclear? Mal 3:1 plus Isa 40:3 is not *Isaiah*, is it?
        >
        > > >Luke 4:18-19 claims that Jesus unrolled the scroll and read
        > > >from "the place where it is written." There is no *place* where this
        was
        > > written,
        > >
        > > What about Is 61:1-2??
        >
        > Again, what Jesus reads comes from 61:1-2 plus (and moving backwards)
        58:6. There
        > is no single place (the implication of Luke's description) where the words
        that
        > Jesus read are written.
        >
        > I'd have thought the examples I gave were 'no brainers."
        >
        >
        > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
        >
        > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
        crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > List managers may be contacted directly at:
        crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • Bob Schacht
        ... [snip] ... Ted, Thanks very much for the clarification, and please accept my apologies for my misunderstanding. I am sorry to have caused you to waste so
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 27, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          At 08:00 AM 11/27/2002 -0600, Ted Weeden wrote:
          >Bob, you wrote on November 26, 2002:
          >
          > > I think that the stance of the Jesus Seminar is that it is impossible to
          > > tell whether or not Jesus said any of those OT things, because it would
          > > not be surprising for any Jew to have said such things. In a way, it falls
          > > into the category of "Please pass the bread," or the appropriate idiom in
          > > Aramaic. Did he say it? Probably, but who knows? What the Jesus Seminar
          > > focused on was sayings that were *original* with Jesus. By definition, the
          > > OT quotes were not original. So it seems to me that Ted is going beyond the
          > > normal operating procedures of the Jesus Seminar by making the stronger
          > > claim, not just that we can't be sure whether Jesus quoted the OT or not,
          > > but that he *did not* quote the OT as Matthew wrote that he did. As is
          > > often the case, I find that Ted goes too far with this claim. I can't prove
          > > that he's wrong, but his case is weak, in my opinion.
          >
          >Bob, you may be right that "*as is often the case . . . Ted goes to far* with
          >this claim." But I am not sure what you mean by "his case is weak, in my
          >opinion," since I have not made the case yet for my view that Jesus did not
          >as a habit "quote" the OT. That case as I indicated in reply to Patrick
          >Paulsen is yet to come. Furthermore, I have *not* taken the position you
          >ascribed to me above, namely, "Ted is going beyond the normal operating
          >procedures of the Jesus Seminar by making the stronger claim, not just
          >that we can't be sure whether Jesus quoted the OT or not, but that he *did
          >not* [your emphasis] quote the OT as Matthew wrote that he did." In
          >my reply to Patrick Paulsen, I had only in mind Mt. 21:13 when I stated
          >that the OT quote attributed to Jesus by Matthew in that Matthean text was
          >not, in my judgment, authentic to the historical Jesus. I have *not* taken
          >the position that *all* OT quotes attributed to Jesus in the Matthean Gospel
          >are the fictive creations of Matthew. I have *not* as yet addressed the
          >issue of the authenticity of every OT quote attributed to Jesus by Matthew.

          [snip]


          >...Thus for clarification, Bob, I have *not* stated thus far that I have
          >concluded that all quotes attributed to Jesus by Matthew are inauthentic.
          >I have only stated that I think that the quote attributed to Jesus in Mt.
          >21:13 is not in my judgment authentic. For further clarification, I have
          >*not* as yet presented my own methodology for arriving at the conclusion
          >regarding the likelihood that the historical Jesus did or did not quote
          >scripture. That presentation is yet to follow as soon as I can complete the
          >essay on my position on the matter.
          >
          >Ted


          Ted,
          Thanks very much for the clarification, and please accept my apologies for
          my misunderstanding. I am sorry to have caused you to waste so much time in
          responding. I will look forward to your presentation on this subject.
          Meanwhile, may you have a most blessed Thanksgiving!

          Bob
        • Ted Weeden
          Bob Schacht wrote on Wednesday, November 27, 2002: 9:48 PM (Ted Weeden had written) ... the ... in ... Bob, your apologies are certainly accepted. Thank you.
          Message 4 of 16 , Nov 28, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Bob Schacht wrote on Wednesday, November 27, 2002: 9:48 PM

            (Ted Weeden had written)
            > >...Thus for clarification, Bob, I have *not* stated thus far that I have
            > >concluded that all quotes attributed to Jesus by Matthew are inauthentic.
            > >I have only stated that I think that the quote attributed to Jesus in Mt.
            > >21:13 is not in my judgment authentic. For further clarification, I have
            > >*not* as yet presented my own methodology for arriving at the conclusion
            > >regarding the likelihood that the historical Jesus did or did not quote
            > >scripture. That presentation is yet to follow as soon as I can complete
            the
            > >essay on my position on the matter.

            > Thanks very much for the clarification, and please accept my apologies for
            > my misunderstanding. I am sorry to have caused you to waste so much time
            in
            > responding. I will look forward to your presentation on this subject.

            Bob, your apologies are certainly accepted. Thank you.

            > Meanwhile, may you have a most blessed Thanksgiving!

            And you, too, Bob!.

            Ted
          • Karel Hanhart
            ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 16 , Nov 29, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > Karel Hanhart wrote in answer

              to the Paulsen family:

              >> Zeba wrote...
              >>
              >> > > >Mark 1:2-3 claims to quote Isaiah. We *all know* (dangerous
              >> assumptioun)
              >> > > you can't find that passage in Isaiah.
              >> >
              >> > Yikes, could you make more clear that you've altered my post here?
              >>
              >> Yeah, sorry about that. Just after I sent it, I wondered how I
              >> should have
              >> emphasized my additions to that.
              >>
              >> No, Malachi + Isaiah is obviously not the same as Isaiah *only*,
              >> but just
              >> as obviously Isaiah is quoted here. Your original post *implied* [or
              >> at
              >> least left open the *inference*] that "this passage" (i.e. what Mark
              >> stated)
              >> was not to be found in Isaiah.
              >>
              >> I have read that, when quoting from, or alluding to, a combination
              >> of OT
              >> sources (especially 'major' and 'minor' prophets), the Gospel
              >> writers (and
              >> others???) would simply conflate them under the name of the 'major'
              >> prophet.
              >> I cannot for the life of me trace this right now - does this sound
              >> familiar
              >> to anyone?
              >
              > Dear Paulsens,I truly wish respondents of this list would demonstrate
              > they have read and understood other posts on the subject of their
              > response. Your question, "does this sound familiar anyone?" doesn't
              > demontrate you did. You refer to certain commentators who display
              > their ignorance of the method of communication through midrash with an
              > glib theory : the authors "simply conflate [two texts from a major and
              > a minor prophet] under the name of the 'major' prophet.
              > However, on several occasion the opinion was offered that Mark made
              > use of the method of midrash. I too offered yo interpret the text in
              > this case. One should at least have the courtesy to reply to such a
              > solution and explain why you think the method of midrash doesn't
              > apply here. Briefly I would repeat:
              > 1. Mark was the John Mark of the Epistles and Acts, hence he was a
              > Judean;
              > 2. At key points he wrote intricate midrashim to convey his message,
              > among them 1,2-3; 15,42 - 15,8.
              > 3. In 1,1-2 the midrash combines Exodus 23,20, Mal 3,1 and Isa 40 3.
              > The first named appeal to a passage from the Pentateuch underlines the
              > importance of the midrash. The three texts carry weight in the Torah.
              >
              > 4. The word 'euaggelizo' and its variants, taken from Isaiah, were
              > frequently used in the pre-70 christian movement, as Paul's letters
              > a,pmg other show. Now Mark still uses it, but Matthew and Luke seem to
              > suppress the term for some reason in key verses.
              > 5. Points 1 - 4 led me to conclude that Mark indeed wrote a post-70
              > revision of an
              > earlier written source (perhaps in his own hand), a position confirmed
              > by two other key midrashim: 9,1-9 and 15,42-16,8 clearly but
              > indirectly referring to the destruction of the temple.
              > Concerning 1,2-3 the passage in Isaiah was in my opinion cited in the
              > pre-70 source, a source used in the worship of Mark's ecclesia
              > (Rome?). The catastrophe of 70 forced him, however, to rewrite this
              > important document. For 'euaggelion' in Isaiah 40 refers to Jerusalem,
              > greeting with joy the returnees from the Babylonian exile. After 70 a
              > reference to joyous Jerusalem would be entirely out of place for a
              > mourning community. Now the midrash combines three elements, a) 'an
              > angel in front of you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the
              > place that I have prepared (i.e. ultimnately Jerusalem); b) the word
              > 'euaggelion' maintained by Mark as it referred to the inspired
              > missions of the Baptist and of Jesus; c) but in the passage of Malachi
              > a tempering reference was made to the 'day of his coming' in judgment
              > of one like a 'refiner's fire and a fullers' soap'. Thus Mark, in my
              > opinion was first in incorporating the sorrow about the fall of
              > Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in the 'euaggelion'. This
              > interpretation - Mark's post-70 revision of an Urmarkus- accounts for
              > all three reference from Exodus, Isaiah and Malachi.
              > The reader will understand why I question Ted Weedens' contention that
              > Mark would frown on a socalled Judahite covenant, a Judean Torah that
              > presumably was not adhered to in the Galilee of Jesus and his
              > disciples But Jesus was a Judean and so were Simon Peter and Paul.
              > Jesus made a pilgrimmage to Jerusalem on several occasions; the
              > apostles too labored in Jerusalem according to Acts.

              > cordially,
              > Karel




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Karel Hanhart
              ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Message 6 of 16 , Dec 9, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                > Karel Hanhart wrote in answer

                to the Paulsen family:

                >> Zeba wrote...
                >>
                >> > > >Mark 1:2-3 claims to quote Isaiah. We *all know* (dangerous
                >> assumptioun)
                >> > > you can't find that passage in Isaiah.
                >> >
                >> > Yikes, could you make more clear that you've altered my post here?
                >>
                >> Yeah, sorry about that. Just after I sent it, I wondered how I
                >> should have
                >> emphasized my additions to that.
                >>
                >> No, Malachi + Isaiah is obviously not the same as Isaiah *only*,
                >> but just
                >> as obviously Isaiah is quoted here. Your original post *implied* [or
                >> at
                >> least left open the *inference*] that "this passage" (i.e. what Mark
                >> stated)
                >> was not to be found in Isaiah.
                >>
                >> I have read that, when quoting from, or alluding to, a combination
                >> of OT
                >> sources (especially 'major' and 'minor' prophets), the Gospel
                >> writers (and
                >> others???) would simply conflate them under the name of the 'major'
                >> prophet.
                >> I cannot for the life of me trace this right now - does this sound
                >> familiar
                >> to anyone?
                >
                > Dear Paulsens,I truly wish respondents of this list would demonstrate
                > they have read and understood other posts on the subject of their
                > response. Your question, "does this sound familiar anyone?" doesn't
                > demontrate you did. You refer to certain commentators who display
                > their ignorance of the method of communication through midrash with an
                > glib theory : the authors "simply conflate [two texts from a major and
                > a minor prophet] under the name of the 'major' prophet.
                > However, on several occasion the opinion was offered that Mark made
                > use of the method of midrash. I too offered yo interpret the text in
                > this case. One should at least have the courtesy to reply to such a
                > solution and explain why the method of midrash doesn't apply here.
                > Briefly I would repeat:
                > 1. Mark was the John Mark of the Epistles and Acts, hence he was a
                > Judean;
                > 2. At key points he wrote intricate midrashim to convey his message,
                > among them 1,2-3; 15,42 - 15,8.
                > 3. In 1,1-2 the midrash combines Exodus 23,20, Mal 3,1 and Isa 40 3.
                > The first appeal to a passage from the Pentateuch underlines the
                > importance of the midrash. The three texts are all weighty in the
                > Torah.
                > 4. The word 'euaggelizo' and its variants taken from Isaiah were
                > frequently used in the pre-70 christian movement. Now Mark still uses
                > it, but Matthew and Luke seem to
                > suppress the term in key verses.
                > 5. Points 1 - 4 led me to conclude that Mark indeed wrote a post-70
                > revision of an
                > earlier written source (perhaps in his own hand), a position confirmed
                > by two other key midrashim: 9,1-9 and 15,42-16,8 clearly but
                > indirectly referring to the destruction of the temple.
                > Concerning 1,2-3 the passage in Isaiah was in my opinion cited in the
                > pre-70 source, a source used in the worship of Mark's ecclesia
                > (Rome?). The catastrophe of 70 forced him, however, to rewrite this
                > important document. For 'euaggelion' in Isaiah 40 refers to Jerusalem,
                > greeting with joy the returnees from the Babylonian exile. After 70 a
                > reference to joyous Jerusalem would be entirely out of place for a
                > mourning community. Now the midrash combines three elements, a) 'an
                > angel in front of you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the
                > place that I have prepared (i.e. ultimnately Jerusalem); b) the word
                > 'euaggelion' maintained by Mark as it referred to the inspired
                > missions of the Baptist and of Jesus; c) but in the passage of Malachi
                > a tempering reference was made to the 'day of his coming' in judgment
                > of one like a 'refiner's fire and a fullers' soap'. Thus Mark, in my
                > opinion was first in incorporating the sorrow about the fall of
                > Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in the 'euaggelion'. This
                > interpretation - Mark's post-70 revision of an Urmarkus- accounts for
                > all three reference from Exodus, Isaiah and Malachi.
                > The reader will understand why I question Ted Weedens' contention that
                > Mark would frown on a socalled Judahite covenant, a Judean Torah that
                > presumably was not adhered to in the Galilee of Jesus and his
                > disciples But Jesus was a Judean and so were Simon Peter and Paul.
                > Jesus made a pilgrimmage to Jerusalem on several occasions; the
                > apostles too labored in Jerusalem according to Acts.



                > cordially,
                > Karel




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