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

Re: [XTalk] Re: origins of the doctrine of atonement

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... [snip] ... I have grave doubts that the center of NT theology is where you say it is. But even if we accept the truth of what you say, your thesis about
    Message 1 of 21 , Nov 11, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      "Richard H. Anderson" wrote:

      > Michael M. Yugovich, greetings and Welcome to Crosstalk2:
      >
      > You ask: Did Christian theology have any antecedents?
      >
      > The core doctrine of Christianity is the statement that Jesus died
      > on the cross for our sins.

      [snip]

      > Therefore the origin of the most important doctrine in Christianity
      > can be traced to Judaism and its High Priest.

      I have grave doubts that the center of NT theology is where you say it
      is. But even if we accept the truth of what you say, your thesis about
      the origin of this center seems to me not only highly questionable (have
      you really interpreted the Numbers text or what Milgrom says about it
      correctly? Does Milgrom himself assert that the background of atonement
      theology in the NT is where you say it is? Was there really an idea of
      atonement for **all** sins attached to the high priest's death in first
      century Judaism? And even if there was, does, e.g., Paul, for whom
      "Christ died for us" is an exceptionally important topos, second only,
      as Hengel has argued, to proclamations of Jesus' resurrection, ever
      allude or appeal to this idea? Does the author of 1 Peter? Does
      Mark?).

      It is also something that seemingly ignores the fact that there were
      other -- and far more widely known and more conspicuously analogous --
      "theologies" of atoning death apart from the one you argue for known to
      NT writers.

      Another curious thing about your thesis is that those like Sam Williams
      (_Jesus Death as Saving Event_) ; David Seely (_The Noble Death_);
      Martin Hengel (_the Atonement_) who have dealt with the origins of the
      "dying for others/our sins" formula and the origin of the idea of Jesus
      death as atoning have *never* felt that the place where you see the
      origin of the atonement idea found in early Christianity is where you
      say it is, let alone that your interpretation of the death of the high
      priest as "atonement" is correct.

      Can you explain this?

      Yours,

      Jeffrey Gibson
      --

      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
      Chicago, IL 60626

      jgibson000@...



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... Besides the fact that what you see as part and parcel of the so called mystery religions was actually never one of their emphases or that there was any
      Message 2 of 21 , Nov 11, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        "Lisbeth S. Fried" wrote:

        > Jesus' atoning death has more to do with Greek and Egyptian mystery
        > religions involving participation in the death and resurrection of
        > the
        > dying
        > and rising god. It has naught to do with Judaism.
        >

        Besides the fact that what you see as part and parcel of the so called
        "mystery religions" was actually never one of their emphases or that
        there was any borrowing on the part of early Christianity from these
        "religions" (see David Seeley's deconstruction of these notions in his
        _The Noble Death_ as well as the destruction of the ideas by Burket in
        his _The Mystery Religions_ and by J. Smith in his _Drudgery Divine_) ,
        your assertion about proclamations of Jesus (or any Jewish martyr's
        death) as atoning as having naught to do with Judaism rides roughshod
        over the data in 4 Maccabees. May I recommend that you have a look at
        Sam Williams' _Jesus Death as Saving Event_ and especially at Martin
        Hengel's _The Atonement_? And there's that nice little discussion of
        the Greek background of the "dying for us/our sins" proclamation found
        in Paul available at

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JBGibsonWritings/files/Paul%27sDyingFormula.pdf

        and at:

        http://www.ibiblio.org/corpus-paul/afr/Paul's+Dying+Formula.pdf

        under the title of little "Paul's "'Dying Formula"" Prolegomena to
        Understanding Its Import and Significance".

        Yours,

        Jeffrey


        --

        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

        1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
        Chicago, IL 60626

        jgibson000@...



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Lisbeth S. Fried
        I have certainly read Burkett s book on Mystery Religion s and see a reinforcement of the theory of Christianity s dependence on these ideas. Paul refers to
        Message 3 of 21 , Nov 11, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I have certainly read Burkett's book on Mystery Religion's
          and see a reinforcement of the theory of Christianity's
          dependence on these ideas. Paul refers to Christianity as
          a mystery. Paul's emphasis on putting off the sinful material
          body and putting on the spiritual body of Christ through baptism
          is the participation in the death and resurrection of the god through
          that rite.
          Sorry, it ain't Jewish -- it's Greek/Egyptian.
          You'll have to show me some *pre-Christian* Jewish evidence in order for
          me to accept the notion that a doctrine of vicarious atonement is
          Jewish.
          Best,
          Liz
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Jeffrey B. Gibson [mailto:jgibson000@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 10:54 PM
          To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: origins of the doctrine of atonement




          "Lisbeth S. Fried" wrote:

          > Jesus' atoning death has more to do with Greek and Egyptian mystery
          > religions involving participation in the death and resurrection of
          > the
          > dying
          > and rising god. It has naught to do with Judaism.
          >

          Besides the fact that what you see as part and parcel of the so called
          "mystery religions" was actually never one of their emphases or that
          there was any borrowing on the part of early Christianity from these
          "religions" (see David Seeley's deconstruction of these notions in his
          _The Noble Death_ as well as the destruction of the ideas by Burket in
          his _The Mystery Religions_ and by J. Smith in his _Drudgery Divine_) ,
          your assertion about proclamations of Jesus (or any Jewish martyr's
          death) as atoning as having naught to do with Judaism rides roughshod
          over the data in 4 Maccabees. May I recommend that you have a look at
          Sam Williams' _Jesus Death as Saving Event_ and especially at Martin
          Hengel's _The Atonement_? And there's that nice little discussion of
          the Greek background of the "dying for us/our sins" proclamation found
          in Paul available at


          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JBGibsonWritings/files/Paul%27sDyingFormula.pd
          f

          and at:

          http://www.ibiblio.org/corpus-paul/afr/Paul's+Dying+Formula.pdf

          under the title of little "Paul's "'Dying Formula"" Prolegomena to
          Understanding Its Import and Significance".

          Yours,

          Jeffrey


          --

          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

          1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
          Chicago, IL 60626

          jgibson000@...



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          ADVERTISEMENT




          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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Bob Schacht
          ... Is it really? According to who? Other core doctrines abound, e.g., that Jesus was THE son of God (GJohn), or the centrality of the Resurrection (Paul),
          Message 4 of 21 , Nov 11, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            At 07:51 PM 11/11/2003 +0000, Richard H. Anderson wrote:
            >Michael M. Yugovich, greetings and Welcome to Crosstalk2:
            >
            >You ask: Did Christian theology have any antecedents?
            >
            >The core doctrine of Christianity is the statement that Jesus died
            >on the cross for our sins. ...

            Is it really? According to who?

            Other "core doctrines" abound, e.g., that Jesus was THE son of God (GJohn),
            or the centrality of the Resurrection (Paul), or Soteriological doctrines
            ("What must I do to be saved?"). There were many strands of early
            Christianity before the Nicene Creed (or even the Apostle's Creed) became
            normative, and each had its own "core doctrines."

            The first answer to Yugovich's question should be obvious: Christian
            theology is largely based on Jewish theology. Every response that does not
            begin with that basic fact is off on the wrong foot to start out with. But
            I take it that there is an implicit assumption within the question that
            takes for granted the Jewish connection and seeks to ask what is different
            about Christian theology, when compared with Jewish theology, and where
            does that begin?

            One good place to start is with Jesus himself, and with E.P. Sanders'
            attempts to deal with this question, e.g. in his The Historical Figure of
            Jesus. I start with Sanders here because he is one of the few to seriously
            think of Jesus as a *theologian.* Of course, he does not use that word in
            the modern sense, but in its basic elemental sense, and that is probably
            the best place to start. At this stage, doctrine is not yet an issue,
            although theology certainly is. So I begin by suggesting that Christian
            theology began before Christian doctrine became established.

            Next, we must not jump too quickly to equating theology with Christology.
            Jesus' theology was about God, and what he thought God was doing, or
            wanted, or whatever.

            It is reasonable to ask if Jesus' theology included anything about the
            cross, or at least, in Anderson's words, "that Jesus died on the cross for
            our sins." I think that Anderson's formulation depends on later
            developments (e.g., by Paul and later "Fathers" of the church). However,
            one might argue that the Markan refrain contains the original Christian
            theology, i.e., "Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must
            undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests,
            and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again." (8:31 &
            //). The Markan repetition of this point might be taken as an indication
            that it was an early liturgical formula.

            I take it that there were at least several early Christian theologies: One
            was probably Pauline, and another Jewish Christian. They differed as to
            whether Jesus was understood as fully human, or as God incarnate. They
            probably also differed in their theology of the resurrection. Not long
            after Paul and James, additional theological traditions began to emerge,
            e.g. a rather gnostic tendency to see Jesus as fully divine, and
            assimilating ideas from Middle Platonism.

            Whether or not one agrees with these specifics, I want to redirect
            attention from later Christian doctrines to First Century probabilities,
            beginning with Jesus himself, and to the various threads of Jewish theology
            current in the First century (e.g., Pharisaic, Sadducean, Essene). It would
            be interesting to hear Jim Davila's take on this.

            Bob Schacht, Ph.D.
            Northern Arizona University



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... To convince me that you ve not read into Paul what you think is there, you ll have to point me to where Burket says this (especially in the light of his
            Message 5 of 21 , Nov 11, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              "Lisbeth S. Fried" wrote:

              > I have certainly read Burkett's book on Mystery Religion's
              > and see a reinforcement of the theory of Christianity's
              > dependence on these ideas. Paul refers to Christianity as
              > a mystery. Paul's emphasis on putting off the sinful material
              > body and putting on the spiritual body of Christ through baptism
              > is the participation in the death and resurrection of the god through
              > that rite.

              To convince me that you've not read into Paul what you think is there,
              you'll have to point me to where Burket says this (especially in the
              light of his assertions on p. 23 that "while it is tempting to assume
              that the central idea of all initiations [in the mysteries] should be
              death and resurrection ... the pagan evidence for pagan resurrection
              symbolism is uncompelling at best" and on p. 75 that "There is a
              dimension of death in all of the mystery initiations, but the concept of
              rebirth or resurrection of either Gods ot mystae is anything but
              explicit:.

              You'll also have to show me why and how G. Wagner, who set out to
              examine the validity of the claims you are making about what Paul's
              terminology indicated Paul believed regarding Jesus death in his
              _Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries: The Problem of the Pauline
              Doctrine of Baptism in Romans VI, 1-11, in the Light of Its
              Religio-Historical; "Parallels"_ , came to the conclusion, after
              examining even the remotest parallels in the primary data on the
              Mysteries in Greek Roman and Egyptian literature, that the mysteries
              are not the source for Paul's language about Jesus death or the origin
              of his beliefs about its atoning significance.

              You'll also have to show me where it is indicated in the actual primary
              sources which describe ot attest to the beliefs of the cults of Isis or
              Osiris, or of Attis and Cybelle, or of Dionysus or Adonis, or of Mithras
              or Demeter, that there was **any** idea of resurrection of these cult
              figures or of those who believed in them that was held by members of
              these cults or that, contrary to what the old History of Religions
              School asserted early in the 20th century, the whole idea of any
              ancient Mediterranean acceptance of and belief in "dying and rising
              saviours" is, as Jonathan Smith (_Drudgery Divine_ 101-105; "Dying and
              Rising Gods" in M. Eliade, ed. _Encyclopedia of Religion_ 4:521-527 and
              many others like A. Wedderburn ("Paul and the Mystery Cults: On Posing
              the Right Questions" , P. Lambrechts (especially _De fenomenologyische
              Methode in Godsdienst-wetenschap_) , and K. Prumm ("Mystery" in
              Sacramentum Verbi and "I considetti "dei morti e risort"
              nell'Ellenisimo") have argued, a product of the modern imagination, a
              "category of more interest to the history of scholarship than to the
              history of religions".

              It's curious, isn't it, if we grant any degree of historicity to Luke's
              depiction of Paul's Areopagus speech, that no one there amongst the
              people Paul preached to -- people we would have every reason to expect
              as knowing what the beliefs of the "Mystery Religions" -- had a clue as
              to what Paul is talking about when he preaches on Jesus as the
              resurrected one. This should not have been the case if your scenario is
              true.

              As ever,

              Jeffrey
              --

              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

              1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
              Chicago, IL 60626

              jgibson000@...



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Richard H. Anderson
              Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote: Was there really an idea of atonement for **all** sins attached to the high priest s death in first century Judaism? RHA: NO, this
              Message 6 of 21 , Nov 11, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote: Was there really an idea of
                atonement for **all** sins attached to the high priest's death in first
                century Judaism?

                RHA: NO, this relates only to manslaughter. see verses cited.

                And even if there was, does, e.g., Paul, for whom
                "Christ died for us" is an exceptionally important topos, second only,
                as Hengel has argued, to proclamations of Jesus' resurrection, ever
                allude or appeal to this idea? Does the author of 1 Peter? Does
                Mark?).

                In my email I cited Heb. 2:17 which states: 'Therefore he [Jesus] had to be
                made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and
                faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins
                of the people'. This response discuss Heb. 2:10 which serves as an
                introduction to Heb. 2:17.
                As long as the Temple stood, the High Priest was in office, the Day of
                Atonement was being observed and Judaism recognized the followers of Jesus
                as Jews there was no need or reason for Luke to proclaim a theology of the
                cross. Judaism defined atonement to be the reconciliation between God and
                man through repentance. The role of the High Priest in obtaining that
                atonement was recognized by Josephus in Bell. 4.318 wherein he called the
                Jews' High Priest 'the captain of their salvation.'
                In Hebrews 2:10 we read: For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and
                by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the
                captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. In most
                translations, archegos [Strong's 747] is translated something other than
                "captain." By translating as captain, we can draw a direct connection
                between the Jewish belief of the role of the High Priest in obtaining that
                atonement and Jesus who becomes the new High Priest and who is called by the
                author of the Epistle to the Hebrews "captain of their salvation. The author
                of the epistle intends to draws upon the belief structure relating to the
                Jewish High Priest including the limited atonement value of his death to
                show the superior efficiacy of the new High Priest with unlimited atonement
                value because he died on the cross for our sins. Therefore no further
                sacrifices are necessary. The author of the Epistle has equated the Jewish
                High Priest with Jesus the new High Priest only to show the inferiority of
                the Jewish High Priest. He has done so by appropriating all of the belief
                structure pertaining to the Jewish High Priest, including but not limited
                to, the title, "captain of their salvation".
                Mark does allude by using ransom in 10:45. But there could be no ransom in
                Judaism when a life has been taken. Luke has no equivalent of the ransom
                saying (Mk 10:45; Matt 20:28) nor of Matthew's connection of Jesus' covenant
                blood with the remission of sins (Mt 26:28). [I accept the conclusions of
                Bart Ehrman that verses {Lk 22:19b-20} were added by second century
                scribes.]

                Richard H. Anderson
                Wallingford, PA
              • Lisbeth S. Fried
                ... From: Richard H. Anderson [mailto:randerson58@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:17 AM To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [XTalk]
                Message 7 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Richard H. Anderson [mailto:randerson58@...]
                  Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:17 AM
                  To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: origins of the doctrine of atonement

                  Dear Richard
                  Y ou write:

                  The role of the High Priest in obtaining that
                  atonement was recognized by Josephus in Bell. 4.318 wherein he called the
                  Jews' High Priest 'the captain of their salvation.'


                  Josephus means that the High Priest effects salvation or atonement by his
                  role
                  in the sacrificial cult, not by his own death.
                  If by his own death, people would pray for the death of the high priest in
                  order to
                  have atonement. That couldn't be further from the truth. Read Ben Sira or
                  Josephus
                  to get the reverential attitude of the people toward the high priest --
                  alive and well
                  and doing his job.

                  Liz

                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  ADVERTISEMENT




                  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Richard H. Anderson
                  ... mystery religions involving participation in the death and resurrection of the dying and rising god. It has naught to do with Judaism. Martin Hengel,
                  Message 8 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Lisbeth S. Fried"
                    <lizfried@u...> wrote:

                    > Jesus' atoning death has more to do with Greek and Egyptian
                    mystery religions involving participation in the death and
                    resurrection of the dying and rising god. It has naught to do with
                    Judaism.

                    Martin Hengel, Atonement: pp. 60-65. Esp. his conclusion on p.
                    64: "As a result, after careful consideration of all the sources
                    indicated, we must agree with Jeremias and Lohse that the vicarious
                    atoning effect of the death or even the suffering of a righteous man
                    was not unknown in the Palestinian Judaism of the first century AD,
                    independently of the question of terminology."

                    Psalm 34 states in verse 22
                    The LORD ransoms the life of his servants, *
                    and none will be punished who trust in him.


                    Joseph Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Christ,
                    Translated from the French by William Wolf, At page 116 wrote: "The
                    doctrine of vicarious atonement through suffering, by death, and
                    especially by martyrdom, seems to have been generally accepted in
                    the Jewish world before Christ (2 Macc. 7:37; Sifre on Num.,
                    25:13)."

                    Richard H. Anderson
                  • Lisbeth S. Fried
                    ... From: Richard H. Anderson [mailto:randerson58@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:40 PM To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Subject: [XTalk] Re:
                    Message 9 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Richard H. Anderson [mailto:randerson58@...]
                      Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:40 PM
                      To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [XTalk] Re: origins of the doctrine of atonement



                      Joseph Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Christ,
                      Translated from the French by William Wolf, At page 116 wrote: "The
                      doctrine of vicarious atonement through suffering, by death, and
                      especially by martyrdom, seems to have been generally accepted in
                      the Jewish world before Christ (2 Macc. 7:37; Sifre on Num.,
                      25:13)."

                      Richard H. Anderson
                      Dear Richard,
                      Again, I don't agree. I do agree, however, that this passage in 2 Macc 7
                      may be the
                      only passage which discusses the pre-Christian Jewish attitude toward
                      suffering. The story is the famous one of the murder of the 7 brothers.
                      7:32 "We are
                      suffering for our own sins.". ..7:36 "For our brothers, after enduring a
                      brief suffering,
                      have fallen into ever flowing life, under God's covenant..." The point is
                      that a person's
                      suffering and death has atoning value for him. This is a well-known
                      doctrine
                      repeated by the rabbis. The punishment that you endure on earth
                      substitutes for any
                      punishment you might have to endure after death. But each must suffer for
                      his
                      own sins.
                      Best,
                      Liz



                      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      ADVERTISEMENT




                      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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Richard H. Anderson
                      ... mystery religions involving participation in the death and resurrection of the dying and rising god. It has naught to do with Judaism. Where did the notion
                      Message 10 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Lisbeth S. Fried"
                        <lizfried@u...> wrote:

                        > Jesus' atoning death has more to do with Greek and Egyptian
                        mystery religions involving participation in the death and
                        resurrection of the dying and rising god. It has naught to do with
                        Judaism.

                        Where did the notion that the death of an ordinary person had
                        salvific value originate? As you know I claim, citing Milgrom, that
                        the death of any high priest had limited salvific value. I also
                        claim that the death of the Jewish High Priest is the origin of the
                        NT doctrine of atonement. Boyarin would say that it is difficult
                        when dealing with cultural border crossings to determine if the
                        origin of a particular idea is Jewish or Christian citing his Jewish-
                        Christian martyrdom discussions. In this instance however, I
                        believe I have the better argument in that the idea of substitution
                        is present, in the sense of 'take the place of' or 'substitute for'
                        the necessity of suffering for one's transgression, BCE.

                        The vicarious intercession of a mediator is present in the
                        following: when the people intercede for Jonathan (1 Sam 14:45) and
                        Abraham for Sodom (Gen 18:22-23), when Moses places himself between
                        the people and God's chastising wrath (Exod 32:30-32) and in a
                        prayer of David for the people (2 Sam 24:17).

                        In response to guiltless suffering the idea of a just man atoning
                        vicariously for Israel became common in early rabbinic Judaism,
                        especially in relation to Moses and Isaac. By the third century CE,
                        whatever soteriological significance the Christians claimed for
                        Jesus, the Jews in turn tended to claim for Moses and/or Isaac.

                        Was pre-Christian Judaism familiar with the idea of a suffering,
                        atoning Messiah? Except possibly for Wis 2:13 and 3:19, the 4th
                        servant song was not interpreted this way in early rabbinic
                        Judaism.

                        Both 2 Maccabees (1st century BCE) and 4 Maccabees contain a martyr
                        theology which provides a significant pre-Christian source for the
                        idea of the vicarious suffering and death of the martyrs. These
                        ideas are strongly suggested in 2 Maccabees, esp. 7:37-38 and 12:42-
                        45, and are stated with clarity in 4 Maccabees, esp. in the prayers
                        of the dying martyrs. Eleazar prays to the Lord to be "merciful unto
                        thy people, and let our punishment be a satisfaction in their
                        behalf. Make thy blood their purification and take my soul to ransom
                        their souls" (4 Maccabees 6:28-29).

                        Something interesting happened in the Alexandrian Septuagint (LXX)
                        translation of Lev. 17:11 from the third century BCE. The final
                        phrase of this verse "It is the blood that makes atonement by reason
                        of the life."

                        There is no question that the LXX of Lev. 17:11 is strongly
                        evocative of substitutionary ideas. This may be the source of
                        Eleazar's prayer in 4 Maccabees 6:28-29.

                        Eleazar is not just any person. Eleazar is the High Priest.

                        Richard H. Anderson
                      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                        ... Good quotes. Note though, that not one of the authorities you cite -- or who are cited by the authorities you cite -- sees the High priest as someone
                        Message 11 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          "Richard H. Anderson" wrote:

                          > --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Lisbeth S. Fried"
                          > <lizfried@u...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > Jesus' atoning death has more to do with Greek and Egyptian
                          > mystery religions involving participation in the death and
                          > resurrection of the dying and rising god. It has naught to do with
                          > Judaism.
                          >
                          > Martin Hengel, Atonement: pp. 60-65. Esp. his conclusion on p.
                          > 64: "As a result, after careful consideration of all the sources
                          > indicated, we must agree with Jeremias and Lohse that the vicarious
                          > atoning effect of the death or even the suffering of a righteous man
                          > was not unknown in the Palestinian Judaism of the first century AD,
                          > independently of the question of terminology."
                          >
                          > Psalm 34 states in verse 22
                          > The LORD ransoms the life of his servants, *
                          > and none will be punished who trust in him.
                          >
                          >
                          > Joseph Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Christ,
                          > Translated from the French by William Wolf, At page 116 wrote: "The
                          > doctrine of vicarious atonement through suffering, by death, and
                          > especially by martyrdom, seems to have been generally accepted in
                          > the Jewish world before Christ (2 Macc. 7:37; Sifre on Num.,
                          > 25:13)."
                          >

                          Good quotes. Note though, that not one of the authorities you cite --
                          or who are cited by the authorities you cite -- sees the High priest as
                          someone whose death is atoning or finds anything within Judaism that
                          points or attests to the particular theological topos that you would
                          have us believe is the origin of the early Christian proclamations of
                          Jesus' death as atoning.

                          Again, how do you explain this?

                          Yours,

                          Jeffrey
                          --

                          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                          1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                          Chicago, IL 60626

                          jgibson000@...



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Crispin Fletcher-Louis
                          Richard, Geoffrey, Liz and all, I ve come in a little late to this fascinating discussion about the high priest in atonement. But may I offer a few
                          Message 12 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Richard, Geoffrey, Liz and all,
                            I've come in a little late to this fascinating discussion about the high
                            priest in atonement. But may I offer a few observations:

                            1. In response to Geoffrey's question, 'how come no one has suggested this
                            high priestly context for atonement before?' I would suggest this is because
                            the high priest has been ignored, period. (see my article at
                            http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/jesus.pdf)

                            2. Richard's ideas need now to be supplemented by a consideration of
                            Margaret Barker's thesis that the goat 'lyhwh' on the Day of Atonement is a
                            substitute for the high priest (who plays the role of YHWH) in the cultic
                            drama. It is the blood of this goat that makes the atonement (in the
                            pre-eminent act of atonement) as a substitute for the life (i.e. Death) of
                            the high priest/yhwh. (See e.g. M. Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ
                            (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), 45 ...; M. Barker, The Great High Priest.
                            The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (London: T. & T. Clark, 2003), chapter
                            3). In both books Barker has fascinating interpretative observations on a
                            number of late second temple texts to support her thesis.

                            3. For further texts relating the suffering of the high priesthood and the
                            Day of Atonement - supportive of Barker's thesis, though not explicitly
                            referring to atoning suffering, see C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, "The Revelation
                            of the Sacral Son of Man: The Genre, History of Religions Context and the
                            Meaning of the Transfiguration," Auferstehung - Resurrection. The Fourth
                            Durham-Tübingen-Symposium: Resurrection, Exaltation, and Transformation in
                            Old Testament, Ancient Judaism, and Early Christianity (eds. F. Avemarie and
                            H. Lichtenberger; WUNT 135; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001) 247-298 (pp.
                            286-88).

                            4. With regards to the Pauline language of putting off the old body and
                            putting on the new one, that Liz quotes, this too might, in fact, be very
                            adequately explained in terms of a (high) priestly background given the
                            evidence from Philo that different priestly garments were identified with
                            different physical/non-physical states. (Barker mounts an impressive case
                            that here Philo attests mainstream Jewish thinking).

                            Yours

                            Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis


                            Dept. of Theology,
                            University of Nottingham,
                            UK
                          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                            ... This link doesn t seem to work. Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1 Chicago, IL 60626 jgibson000@comcast.net [Non-text
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Crispin Fletcher-Louis wrote:

                              > Richard, Geoffrey, Liz and all,
                              > I've come in a little late to this fascinating discussion about the
                              > high
                              > priest in atonement. But may I offer a few observations:
                              >
                              > 1. In response to Geoffrey's question, 'how come no one has
                              > suggested this
                              > high priestly context for atonement before?' I would suggest this is
                              > because
                              > the high priest has been ignored, period. (see my article at
                              > http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/jesus.pdf)
                              >

                              This link doesn't seem to work.

                              Jeffrey
                              --

                              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                              1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                              Chicago, IL 60626

                              jgibson000@...



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Crispin Fletcher-Louis
                              Geoffrey, ... Sorry about that. In that case, you¹ll have to go to http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/ And then scroll down the page until you get to ŒJesus and
                              Message 14 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Geoffrey,

                                >> http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/jesus.pdf)
                                >>
                                >
                                > This link doesn't seem to work.
                                >
                                Sorry about that. In that case, you¹ll have to go to
                                http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/
                                And then scroll down the page until you get to ŒJesus and the High Priest
                                (Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis)¹ under Theme 14.

                                I hope that works.
                                Crispin.



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                ... Thanks for this. I look forward to reading your paper. May I note, though, that one of my reasons for not seeing the death of the high priest, whether
                                Message 15 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Crispin Fletcher-Louis wrote:

                                  > Richard, Geoffrey, Liz and all,
                                  > I've come in a little late to this fascinating discussion about the
                                  > high
                                  > priest in atonement. But may I offer a few observations:
                                  >
                                  > 1. In response to Geoffrey's question, 'how come no one has
                                  > suggested this
                                  > high priestly context for atonement before?' I would suggest this is
                                  > because
                                  > the high priest has been ignored, period. (see my article at
                                  > http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/jesus.pdf)
                                  >
                                  > 2. Richard's ideas need now to be supplemented by a consideration of
                                  > Margaret Barker's thesis that the goat 'lyhwh' on the Day of Atonement
                                  > is a
                                  > substitute for the high priest (who plays the role of YHWH) in the
                                  > cultic
                                  > drama. It is the blood of this goat that makes the atonement (in the
                                  > pre-eminent act of atonement) as a substitute for the life (i.e.
                                  > Death) of
                                  > the high priest/yhwh. (See e.g. M. Barker, The Revelation of Jesus
                                  > Christ
                                  > (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), 45 ...; M. Barker, The Great High
                                  > Priest.
                                  > The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (London: T. & T. Clark, 2003),
                                  > chapter
                                  > 3). In both books Barker has fascinating interpretative observations
                                  > on a
                                  > number of late second temple texts to support her thesis.

                                  Thanks for this. I look forward to reading your paper. May I note,
                                  though, that one of my reasons for not seeing the "death" of the high
                                  priest, whether on the Day of Atonement or not, as the origin of the
                                  belief in the atoning significance of Jesus is that the language used to
                                  describe the significance of Jesus death -- especially in Paul and in
                                  his "died for us/our sins" formula (the background of which is largely
                                  Greek) ---- has little in common with the imagery or the language
                                  surrounding the Temple cult and never seems to allude to the DoA..

                                  Perhaps you deal with this in your article?

                                  Yours,

                                  Jeffrey
                                  --

                                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                  Chicago, IL 60626

                                  jgibson000@...



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Brian Trafford
                                  ... mula.pdf Hi Jeffrey Would it be possible for you to link this particular essay into the XTalk archives? Thank you, Brian Trafford Calgary, AB, Canada
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Nov 13, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
                                    <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
                                    >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JBGibsonWritings/files/Paul27sDyingFor
                                    mula.pdf

                                    Hi Jeffrey

                                    Would it be possible for you to link this particular essay into the
                                    XTalk archives?

                                    Thank you,

                                    Brian Trafford
                                    Calgary, AB, Canada
                                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                    ... It s now at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/Paul%27sDyingFormula.pdf Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Nov 13, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Brian Trafford wrote:

                                      > --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
                                      > <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
                                      > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JBGibsonWritings/files/Paul27sDyingFor
                                      > mula.pdf
                                      >
                                      > Hi Jeffrey
                                      >
                                      > Would it be possible for you to link this particular essay into the
                                      > XTalk archives?
                                      >

                                      It's now at:

                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/Paul%27sDyingFormula.pdf

                                      Jeffrey

                                      --

                                      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                      Chicago, IL 60626

                                      jgibson000@...



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