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
      "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]
    • 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 2 of 21 , Nov 11, 2003
        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 3 of 21 , Nov 11, 2003
          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 4 of 21 , Nov 11, 2003
            "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 5 of 21 , Nov 11, 2003
              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 6 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                -----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 7 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                  --- 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 8 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                    -----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 9 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                      --- 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 10 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                        "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 11 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                          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 12 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                            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 13 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                              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 14 of 21 , Nov 12, 2003
                                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 15 of 21 , Nov 13, 2003
                                  --- 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 16 of 21 , Nov 13, 2003
                                    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.