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

Re: [XTalk] Embarrassment and Mark 15.34

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... As the author of the paper has made it available only to the SBL Mark group, and for discussion within that group, it would be unethical to post it here
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob Schacht wrote:

      > At 08:53 AM 11/2/2004, Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
      >
      > >... I've often wondered if behind the story -- which is the climax of a
      > >series of abandonments of Jesus on the part of those (his nation, his
      > >family, the
      > >crowds, his disciples) who should have stood with him -- lies the story
      > >of God's
      > >testing of Hezekiah by abandoning him.
      > >
      > >An exploration of this theme is carried out in one of the papers to be
      > >discussed
      > >in the Mark Group at the upcoming SBL.
      > >
      > >I wonder if it would be out of line to make the paper available to XTalk
      > >members?
      > >
      > >Yours,
      > >
      > >Jeffrey
      >
      > Why not? Sounds like an intriguing thesis.

      As the author of the paper has made it available only to the SBL Mark group, and
      for discussion within that group, it would be unethical to post it here without
      first securing his permission.

      > The question I might ask, is why
      > is Hezekiah's example so seldom alluded to, either in the first centuries,
      > or in our own?

      Don't know why it isn't in the first century (assuming it isn't), but some
      scholars, Gerhardson among them, have paid some attention to it.

      Jeffrey
      --

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

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

      jgibson000@...
    • Theodore Weeden
      Mark Goodacre wrote Tuesday, November 02, 2004: 1:35 PM Subject: [XTalk] Embarrassment and Mark 15.34 ... I agree with you, Mark. In fact, as soon as I can
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark Goodacre wrote Tuesday, November 02, 2004:

        1:35 PM
        Subject: [XTalk] Embarrassment and Mark 15.34


        >
        > It is commonly said in historical Jesus studies that Mark 15.34,
        > Jesus' cry of dereliction on the cross, satisfies the criterion of
        > "embarrassment" or "against the grain". But I am puzzled by this.
        > Mark's entire Passion Narrative tells the story of Jesus' loneliness
        > and abandonment, from the moment when "everyone deserted him and fled"
        > in Mark 14.50, including a young man who even left his clothes behind
        > in his flight (Mark 14.51-2). Mark apparently sees this as in
        > fulfilment of the Scriptures (Mark 14.27, "I will strike the shepherd
        > and the sheep will be scattered", Zech. 13.7) and repeatedly stresses
        > Jesus' loneliness in his final hours. Everyone, even those crucified
        > with him, join in the mockery (15.32 etc.). So when Mark has Jesus
        > uttering the words of Psalm 22.1, where Jesus expresses his
        > abandonment even by God (15.34), this is just where the narrative has
        > been leading all along. What's more, this is just what one might
        > expect of a victim of crucifixion -- he is experiencing the "anomalous
        > frightful", the totally shameful and degrading death on the cross. In
        > what way is Mark in the least bit embarrassed by this? He is telling
        > a compelling story of a victim of the most vile of punishments, is he

        I agree with you, Mark. In fact, as soon as I can revise it, I have a book
        which Polebridge Press has offered to publish in which I argue that the
        entire passion narrative is a creation of Mark, from the Gethsemane episode
        through to the empty tomb story. The Gethsemane episode, Judas' betrayal
        and Peter's denial are based upon the Davidic saga of II Sam. 15-17 and 20.
        The trials are a creation of Mark modeled after the Jewish and Roman
        hearings of Jesus son of Ananias, as found in Josephus' _Jewish War_ VI,
        300-309. The crucifixion story is Mark's literary creation using OT
        passages, one of which is Ps. 22:1, etc, etc.



        BTW, with respect to Zechariah 13:7 vis-a-vis Mk. 14:27, I argue that Mk.
        14:27 is a Markan rewrite of Zech. 13:7 to bring it into conformity with II
        Sam. 17:2. As Raymond Brown observes (_The Death of the Messiah_, I:129),
        "This is a form [the Markan citation of Zech. 13:7] that ...does not
        correspond to the MT or majority LXX reading of Zech 13:7." The MT of Zech
        13:7, corresponding to Mark's citation, is translated, "Strike the shepherd
        and the sheep are scattered." The LXX of Zech 13:7 is: PATAXATE TOUS
        POIMENAS KAI EKOPASATE TA PROBATA KAI EPAXW THN CEIRA MOU EPI TOUS POIMENAS
        ("Strike the shepherds and draw out or pluck out the sheep"). Mark leads us
        to believe that the Greek of Zech 13:7 or his Greek translation of the
        Hebrew is PATAXW TON POIMENA, KAI TA PROBATA DOASKORPISQHSONTAI ("Strike the
        shepherd [singular, not plural as in Zechariah] and the sheep will be
        scattered') as Mark cites it in 14:27.



        I am struck by the way Mark has rephrased Zech 13:7 by changing the
        Zechariah plural POIMENAS ("shepherds") to POIMENA ("shepherd") and by
        altering of the verbal form from an imperative mood (PATAXATE), albeit with
        a conditional nuance, into a present indicative mood (PATAXW). In doing
        so he thus creates the clause PATAXW TON POINEMA which comes close to
        matching the clause PATAXW TON BASILEA MONWTATON ("I will strike the king
        alone") found in II Sam. 17:2 where Ahithophel (David's counselor-betrayer
        and after whom Judas is modeled by Mark) describes his plan to Absalom to
        catch David by surprise at night on the Mt. of Olives --- where David has
        fled with his forces --- and kill him. With David psychologically
        vulnerable, Ahithophel reasons that he will thus "throw David into a panic"
        and KAI FEUXETAIN PAS hO MET' AUTOU ("all the people who are with him will
        flee," II Sam. 17:2). As Ahithophel planned it, once the king was "struck"
        his followers would desert him and he, Ahithophel, "will bring all people
        back to you [Absalom] as a bride comes home to her husband" (II Sam. 17:3).



        That is, I propose, where Mark got his idea for Judas' betrayal, the
        striking of "the shepherd" Jesus with a kiss, which led to his arrest, and
        which in turn triggered the flight of Jesus' disciples --- analogous to the
        fleeing of the supporters of David upon the execution of Ahithophel's plan
        against David (a plan which Absalom rejected). Thus, I submit, to provide
        scriptural support for this whole Gethsemane scene which Mark borrowed from
        II Sam. 15-17, 20, Mark adopted Zechariah 13:7and rephrased it to conform
        more closely to Ahithophel's declaration with respect to the striking down
        of David and the flight of David's followers.



        Ted Weeden
        Retired
        PhD (Claremont Graduate School)
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... Are you saying there was no betrayal tradition before Mark? If so, how do you handle 1 Cor. 11:23? Is PAREDIDETO **purely** theological = delivered up
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Theodore Weeden wrote:

          > I agree with you, Mark. In fact, as soon as I can revise it, I have a book
          > which Polebridge Press has offered to publish in which I argue that the
          > entire passion narrative is a creation of Mark, from the Gethsemane episode
          > through to the empty tomb story. The Gethsemane episode, Judas' betrayal
          > and Peter's denial are based upon the Davidic saga of II Sam. 15-17 and 20.

          Are you saying there was no betrayal tradition before Mark? If so, how do you
          handle 1 Cor. 11:23? Is PAREDIDETO **purely** theological = "delivered up (by
          God)", rather than "betrayed (by a betrayer)"?

          Yours,

          Jeffrey


          >
          > The trials are a creation of Mark modeled after the Jewish and Roman
          > hearings of Jesus son of Ananias, as found in Josephus' _Jewish War_ VI,
          > 300-309. The crucifixion story is Mark's literary creation using OT
          > passages, one of which is Ps. 22:1, etc, etc.
          >
          > BTW, with respect to Zechariah 13:7 vis-a-vis Mk. 14:27, I argue that Mk.
          > 14:27 is a Markan rewrite of Zech. 13:7 to bring it into conformity with II
          > Sam. 17:2. As Raymond Brown observes (_The Death of the Messiah_, I:129),
          > "This is a form [the Markan citation of Zech. 13:7] that ...does not
          > correspond to the MT or majority LXX reading of Zech 13:7." The MT of Zech
          > 13:7, corresponding to Mark's citation, is translated, "Strike the shepherd
          > and the sheep are scattered." The LXX of Zech 13:7 is: PATAXATE TOUS
          > POIMENAS KAI EKOPASATE TA PROBATA KAI EPAXW THN CEIRA MOU EPI TOUS POIMENAS
          > ("Strike the shepherds and draw out or pluck out the sheep"). Mark leads us
          > to believe that the Greek of Zech 13:7 or his Greek translation of the
          > Hebrew is PATAXW TON POIMENA, KAI TA PROBATA DOASKORPISQHSONTAI ("Strike the
          > shepherd [singular, not plural as in Zechariah] and the sheep will be
          > scattered') as Mark cites it in 14:27.
          >
          > I am struck by the way Mark has rephrased Zech 13:7 by changing the
          > Zechariah plural POIMENAS ("shepherds") to POIMENA ("shepherd") and by
          > altering of the verbal form from an imperative mood (PATAXATE), albeit with
          > a conditional nuance, into a present indicative mood (PATAXW). In doing
          > so he thus creates the clause PATAXW TON POINEMA which comes close to
          > matching the clause PATAXW TON BASILEA MONWTATON ("I will strike the king
          > alone") found in II Sam. 17:2 where Ahithophel (David's counselor-betrayer
          > and after whom Judas is modeled by Mark) describes his plan to Absalom to
          > catch David by surprise at night on the Mt. of Olives --- where David has
          > fled with his forces --- and kill him. With David psychologically
          > vulnerable, Ahithophel reasons that he will thus "throw David into a panic"
          > and KAI FEUXETAIN PAS hO MET' AUTOU ("all the people who are with him will
          > flee," II Sam. 17:2). As Ahithophel planned it, once the king was "struck"
          > his followers would desert him and he, Ahithophel, "will bring all people
          > back to you [Absalom] as a bride comes home to her husband" (II Sam. 17:3).
          >
          > That is, I propose, where Mark got his idea for Judas' betrayal, the
          > striking of "the shepherd" Jesus with a kiss, which led to his arrest, and
          > which in turn triggered the flight of Jesus' disciples --- analogous to the
          > fleeing of the supporters of David upon the execution of Ahithophel's plan
          > against David (a plan which Absalom rejected). Thus, I submit, to provide
          > scriptural support for this whole Gethsemane scene which Mark borrowed from
          > II Sam. 15-17, 20, Mark adopted Zechariah 13:7and rephrased it to conform
          > more closely to Ahithophel's declaration with respect to the striking down
          > of David and the flight of David's followers.
          >
          > Ted Weeden
          > Retired
          > PhD (Claremont Graduate School)
          >
          >
          > 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
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >

          --

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

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

          jgibson000@...
        • William Arnal
          ... It needn t be one or the other -- the root meaning is to hand over as in to hand over to the authorities, police, courts, etc. So LSJ and BAGD. No idea
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Jeffrey asks:

            >Are you saying there was no betrayal tradition before Mark? If so, how do
            >you
            >handle 1 Cor. 11:23? Is PAREDIDETO **purely** theological = "delivered
            >up (by
            >God)", rather than "betrayed (by a betrayer)"?

            It needn't be one or the other -- the root meaning is to "hand over" as in
            to hand over to the authorities, police, courts, etc. So LSJ and BAGD. No
            idea of "betrayal" is required here, simply arrest. Cf. Mark 15:1.

            cheers,
            Bill
            ______________________
            William Arnal
            University of Regina

            "It's not that I don't like people. I just feel better when they're not
            around."
            -- Mickey Rourke, "Barfly"
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... Yes, I am aware of the root meaning. But as LSJ also notes, when PARADIDWMI is used as it is in 1 Cor. with reference to a **person**, the verb more
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              William Arnal wrote:

              > Jeffrey asks:
              >
              > >Are you saying there was no betrayal tradition before Mark? If so, how do
              > >you
              > >handle 1 Cor. 11:23? Is PAREDIDETO **purely** theological = "delivered
              > >up (by
              > >God)", rather than "betrayed (by a betrayer)"?
              >
              > It needn't be one or the other -- the root meaning is to "hand over" as in
              > to hand over to the authorities, police, courts, etc. So LSJ and BAGD. No
              > idea of "betrayal" is required here, simply arrest. Cf. Mark 15:1.

              Yes, I am aware of the "root" meaning. But as LSJ also notes, when PARADIDWMI
              is used as it is in 1 Cor. with reference to a **person**, the verb more often
              than not meant "to betray".

              Yours,

              Jeffrey
              --

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

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

              jgibson000@...
            • Theodore Weeden
              ... Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as betrayal in I Cor. 11:23 (found in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

                > Theodore Weeden wrote:
                >
                >> I agree with you, Mark. In fact, as soon as I can revise it, I have a
                >> book
                >> which Polebridge Press has offered to publish in which I argue that the
                >> entire passion narrative is a creation of Mark, from the Gethsemane
                >> episode
                >> through to the empty tomb story. The Gethsemane episode, Judas'
                >> betrayal
                >> and Peter's denial are based upon the Davidic saga of II Sam. 15-17 and
                >> 20.
                >
                > Are you saying there was no betrayal tradition before Mark? If so, how do
                > you
                > handle 1 Cor. 11:23? Is PAREDIDETO **purely** theological = "delivered
                > up (by
                > God)", rather than "betrayed (by a betrayer)"?

                Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as "betrayal" in I Cor. 11:23 (found
                in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas'
                betrayal in the Synoptics, John and Acts. There is no reason why PARADIDOMI
                cannot be translated as "handed over or delivered up" (i.e. "arrested") in
                that passage. I find it striking that if Paul meant or interpreted
                PARADIDOMAI as a reference to the betrayal of Jesus that he does not make
                any reference to the betrayal anywhere in his letters. In fact, there is no
                explicit or implicit allusion to the disaffection of any one in the
                inner-circle of Jesus' followers prior to Mark. I cannot find any allusion
                in Q or Thomas.


                Moreover, it is surprising that if Paul was aware of the betrayal of Jesus
                by Judas that he does not use that information to attack the "false/super
                apostles" in II Cor. 10-13, particularly II Cor. 11:13-15. Had Paul known
                about Judas, how could he have passed up the opportunity to cite Judas as an
                excellent example (to paraphrase Paul only slightly) of a false disciple,
                deceitful worker.disguising himself as a disciple of Christ, behind whom was
                Satan in disguise, a false disciple whose end matched his deeds?



                Furthermore, I find it strange that Paul in citing the resurrection
                appearances to various early Christian leaders and their respective cohorts
                in I Cor. 15:5ff., that Paul cites "Peter and then to the Twelve." Not
                "Peter and then to the Eleven." I, as does Crossan, see the election held
                for Judas' replacement in Acts to be pure Lukan fiction to deal with the
                apostasy of Judas which he derived from Mark. Paul's citation, which must
                go back to the 50's or earlier, suggests that the Twelve are a coherent and
                faithful body of original disciples with its original integrity in tact.



                Ted Weeden
              • Mark Goodacre
                ... In fact I was stuck recently by just how major a theme PARADIDWMI is in Mark s Passion Narrative -- 15.1 Jesus is handed over to Pilate, 15.10 the chief
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 16:21:17 -0600, William Arnal <warnal@...> wrote:

                  > It needn't be one or the other -- the root meaning is to "hand over" as in
                  > to hand over to the authorities, police, courts, etc. So LSJ and BAGD. No
                  > idea of "betrayal" is required here, simply arrest. Cf. Mark 15:1.

                  In fact I was stuck recently by just how major a theme PARADIDWMI is
                  in Mark's Passion Narrative -- 15.1 Jesus is handed over to Pilate,
                  15.10 the chief priests are said to have handed Jesus over because of
                  envy, 15.15 Pilate hands Jesus over to be scourged and crucified. Cf.
                  Vernon Robbins's 1992 article in the Neirynck Festschrift reproduced
                  at http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/ReversedPs22Mark15.pdf
                  (1166).

                  Mark
                  --
                  Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                  Dept of Theology and Religion
                  University of Birmingham
                  Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
                  Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

                  http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
                  http://NTGateway.com
                • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                  ... Except that that seems to have been the meaning it bore when used with reference to a person, especially a person who shortly after the delivery suffers
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Theodore Weeden wrote:

                    > Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
                    >
                    > > Theodore Weeden wrote:
                    > >
                    > >> I agree with you, Mark. In fact, as soon as I can revise it, I have a
                    > >> book
                    > >> which Polebridge Press has offered to publish in which I argue that the
                    > >> entire passion narrative is a creation of Mark, from the Gethsemane
                    > >> episode
                    > >> through to the empty tomb story. The Gethsemane episode, Judas'
                    > >> betrayal
                    > >> and Peter's denial are based upon the Davidic saga of II Sam. 15-17 and
                    > >> 20.
                    > >
                    > > Are you saying there was no betrayal tradition before Mark? If so, how do
                    > > you
                    > > handle 1 Cor. 11:23? Is PAREDIDETO **purely** theological = "delivered
                    > > up (by
                    > > God)", rather than "betrayed (by a betrayer)"?
                    >
                    > Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as "betrayal" in I Cor. 11:23 (found
                    > in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas'
                    > betrayal in the Synoptics, John and Acts. There is no reason why PARADIDOMI
                    > cannot be translated as "handed over or delivered up" (i.e. "arrested") in
                    > that passage.

                    Except that that seems to have been the meaning it bore when used with reference
                    to a person, especially a person who shortly after the delivery suffers death..

                    > I find it striking that if Paul meant or interpreted
                    > PARADIDOMAI as a reference to the betrayal of Jesus that he does not make
                    > any reference to the betrayal anywhere in his letters. In fact, there is no
                    > explicit or implicit allusion to the disaffection of any one in the
                    > inner-circle of Jesus' followers prior to Mark. I cannot find any allusion
                    > in Q or Thomas.

                    Well, he doesn't make any reference to the words of institution anywhere else
                    either. Does that mean that Paul really has no knowledge the events of the "last
                    supper"?

                    >
                    >
                    > Moreover, it is surprising that if Paul was aware of the betrayal of Jesus
                    > by Judas that he does not use that information to attack the "false/super
                    > apostles" in II Cor. 10-13, particularly II Cor. 11:13-15. Had Paul known
                    > about Judas, how could he have passed up the opportunity to cite Judas as an
                    > excellent example (to paraphrase Paul only slightly) of a false disciple,
                    > deceitful worker.disguising himself as a disciple of Christ, behind whom was
                    > Satan in disguise, a false disciple whose end matched his deeds?

                    Isn't this reading the Johannine vision of Judas into who Paul must have known
                    Judas was if he knew him at all?

                    > Furthermore, I find it strange that Paul in citing the resurrection
                    > appearances to various early Christian leaders and their respective cohorts
                    > in I Cor. 15:5ff., that Paul cites "Peter and then to the Twelve." Not
                    > "Peter and then to the Eleven." I, as does Crossan, see the election held
                    > for Judas' replacement in Acts to be pure Lukan fiction to deal with the
                    > apostasy of Judas which he derived from Mark. Paul's citation, which must
                    > go back to the 50's or earlier, suggests that the Twelve are a coherent and
                    > faithful body of original disciples with its original integrity in tact.

                    Or a symbol of the new Israel which does always depend upon being comprised of
                    exactly 12 men to be what it is supposed to represent. I think the discrepancies
                    in the Synoptic Lists who was among the 12 lends credence to this idea.

                    Yours,

                    Jeffrey
                    --

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

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

                    jgibson000@...
                  • William Arnal
                    ... And said something similar to me as well. In fact neither LSJ nor the text of Mark (cf. 15:1, as I noted earlier, as well as Mark Goodacre s [the *other*
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jeffrey wrote, in response to Ted:


                      > > Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as "betrayal" in I Cor. 11:23
                      >(found
                      > > in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas'
                      > > betrayal in the Synoptics, John and Acts. There is no reason why
                      >PARADIDOMI
                      > > cannot be translated as "handed over or delivered up" (i.e. "arrested")
                      >in
                      > > that passage.
                      >
                      >Except that that seems to have been the meaning it bore when used with
                      >reference
                      >to a person, especially a person who shortly after the delivery suffers
                      >death..

                      And said something similar to me as well. In fact neither LSJ nor the text
                      of Mark (cf. 15:1, as I noted earlier, as well as Mark Goodacre's [the
                      *other* Mark!] recent post on this thread) supports this quite rigid way of
                      fixing the meaning. LSJ (confirmed by Mark's usage) gives "handed over (to
                      justice, the authorities, etc.)" as the meaning with respect to persons as
                      well as objects, "with collateral notion of treachery" *sometimes* implied.
                      Again, see Mark 15:1, where "betrayal" is not at issue in any way: it is
                      just a giving over (of a person) to an enemy.

                      regards,
                      Bill
                    • Mark Goodacre
                      Ted -- thanks for that and I look forward very much to the book. Just one comment at this stage: On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:00:15 -0500, Theodore Weeden ... You
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ted -- thanks for that and I look forward very much to the book. Just
                        one comment at this stage:

                        On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:00:15 -0500, Theodore Weeden
                        <tweeden@...> wrote:

                        > Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as "betrayal" in I Cor. 11:23 (found
                        > in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas'
                        > betrayal in the Synoptics, John and Acts. There is no reason why PARADIDOMI
                        > cannot be translated as "handed over or delivered up" (i.e. "arrested") in
                        > that passage. I find it striking that if Paul meant or interpreted
                        > PARADIDOMAI as a reference to the betrayal of Jesus that he does not make
                        > any reference to the betrayal anywhere in his letters. In fact, there is no
                        > explicit or implicit allusion to the disaffection of any one in the
                        > inner-circle of Jesus' followers prior to Mark. I cannot find any allusion
                        > in Q or Thomas.

                        You have used this kind of argument before, in relation to Peter's
                        denial, if I remember correctly. My problem with this kind of
                        argument from silence is that it needs to establish that, all things
                        being equal, we would have expected Q or Thomas to feature a reference
                        to this had they known of it. But given the lack of a Passion
                        Narrative in either Q or Thomas, it's simply unsurprising that they do
                        not feature a reference to it. At least in Thomas's case, and
                        arguably in Q's too, the very genre of the book precludes reference to
                        it. Crossan uses the same kind of argument and I find it baffling.
                        There may be good arguments to be had on this topic, but appeal to the
                        silence of Thomas and Q just can't be be persuasive, can it?

                        Mark
                        --
                        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                        Dept of Theology and Religion
                        University of Birmingham
                        Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
                        Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

                        http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
                        http://NTGateway.com
                      • Theodore Weeden
                        Jeffrey Gibson wrote: ... It is not clear to me what you are positing here. Are you suggesting that a person delivered up to death is understood to have been
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

                          TJW wrote:

                          >> Jeffrey, the translation of PARADIDOMI as "betrayal" in I Cor. 11:23
                          >> (found
                          >> in most translations) is unfortunately prejudiced by the story of Judas'
                          >> betrayal in the Synoptics, John and Acts. There is no reason why
                          >> PARADIDOMI
                          >> cannot be translated as "handed over or delivered up" (i.e. "arrested")
                          >> in
                          >> that passage.
                          >
                          > Except that that seems to have been the meaning it bore when used with
                          > reference
                          > to a person, especially a person who shortly after the delivery suffers
                          > death..

                          It is not clear to me what you are positing here. Are you suggesting that a
                          person delivered up to death is understood to have been betrayed?
                          >
                          >> I find it striking that if Paul meant or interpreted
                          >> PARADIDOMAI as a reference to the betrayal of Jesus that he does not
                          >> make
                          >> any reference to the betrayal anywhere in his letters. In fact, there is
                          >> no
                          >> explicit or implicit allusion to the disaffection of any one in the
                          >> inner-circle of Jesus' followers prior to Mark. I cannot find any
                          >> allusion
                          >> in Q or Thomas.
                          >
                          > Well, he doesn't make any reference to the words of institution anywhere
                          > else
                          > either. Does that mean that Paul really has no knowledge the events of
                          > the "last
                          > supper"?

                          Paul gives no indication that he knows much at all about Jesus events or his
                          teaching. He does know that he was crucified and that he and others had
                          some experience, vision or otherwise, of Jesus being alive to them after his
                          death.
                          >
                          >>
                          >>
                          >> Moreover, it is surprising that if Paul was aware of the betrayal of
                          >> Jesus
                          >> by Judas that he does not use that information to attack the "false/super
                          >> apostles" in II Cor. 10-13, particularly II Cor. 11:13-15. Had Paul
                          >> known
                          >> about Judas, how could he have passed up the opportunity to cite Judas as
                          >> an
                          >> excellent example (to paraphrase Paul only slightly) of a false disciple,
                          >> deceitful worker.disguising himself as a disciple of Christ, behind whom
                          >> was
                          >> Satan in disguise, a false disciple whose end matched his deeds?
                          >
                          > Isn't this reading the Johannine vision of Judas into who Paul must have
                          > known
                          > Judas was if he knew him at all?

                          No, I was not thinking of John at this point, only paraphrasing what Paul
                          was saying about his opponents, which he could have easily cited as
                          exemplified in Judas, if he had known of the betrayal.
                          >
                          >> Furthermore, I find it strange that Paul in citing the resurrection
                          >> appearances to various early Christian leaders and their respective
                          >> cohorts
                          >> in I Cor. 15:5ff., that Paul cites "Peter and then to the Twelve." Not
                          >> "Peter and then to the Eleven." I, as does Crossan, see the election held
                          >> for Judas' replacement in Acts to be pure Lukan fiction to deal with the
                          >> apostasy of Judas which he derived from Mark. Paul's citation, which
                          >> must
                          >> go back to the 50's or earlier, suggests that the Twelve are a coherent
                          >> and
                          >> faithful body of original disciples with its original integrity in tact.
                          >
                          > Or a symbol of the new Israel which does always depend upon being
                          > comprised of
                          > exactly 12 men to be what it is supposed to represent. I think the
                          > discrepancies
                          > in the Synoptic Lists who was among the 12 lends credence to this idea.

                          But the imagery or metaphor of the 12 representing the New Israel is
                          undermined if one of the disciples was known to have been a betrayer of the
                          Messiah of the new Israel. Luke resolves that difficulty by having Judas
                          replaced and restoring the integrity of the 12.

                          Ted
                        • Mark Goodacre
                          On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:17:48 -0600, Jeffrey B. Gibson ... Prof. Campbell has now kindly given his permission for his article to be shared with Xtalk members
                          Message 12 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:17:48 -0600, Jeffrey B. Gibson
                            <jgibson000@...> wrote:

                            > > > An exploration of this theme is carried out in one of the papers to be discussed
                            > > > in the Mark Group at the upcoming SBL.
                            > > >
                            > > > I wonder if it would be out of line to make the paper available to XTalk members?
                            > >
                            > > It sounds interesting; who wrote it?
                            >
                            > A William Sanger Campbell at Columbia Theological Seminary in Georgia.

                            Prof. Campbell has now kindly given his permission for his article to
                            be shared with Xtalk members (but he asks that it not be distributed
                            more widely). I have uploaded it to the files area of the list --
                            click on campbell.pdf at
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/ .

                            Mark
                            --
                            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                            Dept of Theology and Religion
                            University of Birmingham
                            Elmfield House, Selly Oak tel.+44 121 414 7512
                            Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376

                            http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
                            http://NTGateway.com
                          • Mike Grondin
                            ... Hi Bob, Your question caused me to do a little research. My reading of 2 Kings 20:1-11 (which I think is what Jeffrey was referring to) indicates it d be a
                            Message 13 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- Bob Schacht asked Jeffrey:
                              > The question I might ask, is why is Hezekiah's example so seldom
                              > alluded to, either in the first centuries, or in our own?

                              Hi Bob,
                              Your question caused me to do a little research. My reading of 2
                              Kings 20:1-11 (which I think is what Jeffrey was referring to)
                              indicates it'd be a pretty tough sell to make it out to be an
                              example of either testing or abandonment. Looks to me like the
                              author was simply saying that it was Hezekiah's time to go, but
                              that Yahweh responded to his prayers by adding fifteen years to his
                              life. There is the three-day thingy (Yahweh/Isaiah tells Hezekiah
                              on his sick bed that he'll be well enough in three days to go to
                              the Temple), but that seems to be the only point of analogy.

                              The other thing is, Hezekiah doesn't turn out to be entirely
                              admirable in the end. Although said to be the greatest of the Kings
                              of Judah, nevertheless he's blamed (at the end of 2 Kings 20) for
                              sowing the seeds of Babylonian captivity a century in the future,
                              by showing the King of Babylon what riches there were in Jerusalem.
                              Worse still, when Isaiah upbraids him for doing that, and tells him
                              what's going to happen in the future because of it, he's made to
                              respond (roughly) "That's OK - I won't be around."

                              These are probably two good reasons why Hezekiah isn't/wasn't used
                              as an example of abandonment.

                              Regards,
                              Mike Grondin
                            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                              ... You need to look at the LXX version of this! Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1 Chicago, IL 60626 jgibson000@comcast.net
                              Message 14 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mike Grondin wrote:

                                > --- Bob Schacht asked Jeffrey:
                                > > The question I might ask, is why is Hezekiah's example so seldom
                                > > alluded to, either in the first centuries, or in our own?
                                >
                                > Hi Bob,
                                > Your question caused me to do a little research. My reading of 2
                                > Kings 20:1-11 (which I think is what Jeffrey was referring to)
                                > indicates it'd be a pretty tough sell to make it out to be an
                                > example of either testing or abandonment. Looks to me like the
                                > author was simply saying that it was Hezekiah's time to go, but
                                > that Yahweh responded to his prayers by adding fifteen years to his
                                > life. There is the three-day thingy (Yahweh/Isaiah tells Hezekiah
                                > on his sick bed that he'll be well enough in three days to go to
                                > the Temple), but that seems to be the only point of analogy.

                                You need to look at the LXX version of this!

                                Jeffrey
                                --

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

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

                                jgibson000@...
                              • Mike Grondin
                                ... You mean IV Kings 20:1-11? Seems to read about the same. Mike
                                Message 15 of 22 , Nov 2, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                                  > You need to look at the LXX version of this!

                                  You mean IV Kings 20:1-11? Seems to read about the same.

                                  Mike
                                • Jack Kilmon
                                  ... From: Pawel Glowacki To: Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Embarrassment and
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Nov 3, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: "Pawel Glowacki" <paglo53@...>
                                    To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:12 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [XTalk] Embarrassment and Mark 15.34


                                    >
                                    >
                                    > I have a question concerning Mk 15;34. An Israeli friend of mine with no
                                    > knowledge of the Passion Story couldn't understand the words
                                    > ELOI ELOI LAMA SABACHTHANI.
                                    > Then we looked into The Book of Psalms in Hebrew and found that what is
                                    > there is actually
                                    > ELI ELI LAMA AZAVTANI,
                                    > which made a perfect sense to her. Is the Hebrew part of Mk 15;34
                                    > distorted? How is this explained?
                                    > Pawel


                                    The cry from the cross is in the language spoken at the time, Aramaic, not
                                    distorted Hebrew. Mark attempts to transliterate it in Greek. The Aramaic
                                    would be aLOho, aLOho, lama shevawkTAni. In Hebrew, it is as in Psalm 22.
                                    The cry from the cross becomes a targumic one-liner.

                                    Jack Kilmon
                                    San Marcos, Texas
                                  • sdavies0
                                    Paul uses paradidomai in Romans 8:32 to mean that God delivered up Jesus. There is no reason to think that he thinks otherwise in 1 Cor. 11:23 where Jesus is
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Nov 3, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Paul uses paradidomai in Romans 8:32 to mean that God delivered up
                                      Jesus. There is no reason to think that he thinks otherwise in 1 Cor.
                                      11:23 where Jesus is delivered up (paredideto).

                                      Steve Davies
                                    • Jack Kilmon
                                      I don t think Lamsa s translation, which is a combination of modern Assyrian idiom and a theological bent, is credible. Lamsa s translation is of the Peshitta
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Nov 3, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I don't think Lamsa's translation, which is a combination of modern Assyrian
                                        idiom and a theological bent, is credible. Lamsa's translation is of the
                                        Peshitta which is a Syriac translation of the Greek New Testament. Jesus
                                        did not speak Syriac. Syriiac is a late Eastern dialect while Jesus spoke a
                                        MIDDLE Western dialect. The Matthean scribe copied Mark but redacted the
                                        line. I don't think he was that facile in Aramaic. Mark transliterated in
                                        Greek, ELWI ELWI LEMA SABAXQANI.

                                        sabaxqany is, in Aramaic, $bqtny, and it means "forsake/abandon-you-me"
                                        Jesus would have read scripture in Hebrew but expounded on it, in sermons,
                                        in his first language, Aramaic, or under great pain and stress. Mark 15:34
                                        is Psalms 22:1 and the embarrassment over the cry for some will just have to
                                        stand.

                                        Jack



                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "James Hammond" <jhammond@...>
                                        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 7:06 AM
                                        Subject: RE: [XTalk] Embarrassment and Mark 15.34


                                        >
                                        >
                                        > In The Holy Bible Aramaic translation by George M Lamsa, he translates it
                                        > as
                                        > ‘And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice and said, “Eli,
                                        > Eli, lmana shabakthani! My God, My God, for this I was spared, this was my
                                        > destiny”’ He therefore claims that Jesus is not quoting Psalm 22, stating
                                        > that nashatani means ‘forsaken me’ whilst Sabachthani means ‘kept me’.
                                        >
                                        > The whole idea of God the Father 'turning his back' on Jesus seems
                                        > impossible. Bob Passantino has an excellent article on this, titled "Did
                                        > the
                                        > Father Leave the Son on the Cross?" and James Oliver Buswell's Systematic
                                        > Theology of the Christian Religion also goes into detail about this.
                                        >
                                        > I'm assuming I'm answering the right query in your posting!
                                        >
                                        > Regards
                                        > James Hammond
                                        > Pastor, Worldwide Church of God, Ramsey, United Kingdom
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > -----Original Message-----
                                        > From: Pawel Glowacki [mailto:paglo53@...]
                                        > Sent: 03 November 2004 07:13
                                        > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Subject: Re: [XTalk] Embarrassment and Mark 15.34
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > I have a question concerning Mk 15;34. An Israeli friend of mine with no
                                        > knowledge of the Passion Story couldn't understand the words ELOI ELOI
                                        > LAMA
                                        > SABACHTHANI.
                                        > Then we looked into The Book of Psalms in Hebrew and found that what is
                                        > there is actually ELI ELI LAMA AZAVTANI, which made a perfect sense to
                                        > her.
                                        > Is the Hebrew part of Mk 15;34 distorted? How is this explained?
                                        > Pawel
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                                        > Make
                                        > a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                                        > Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                                        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wpWolB/TM
                                        > --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
                                        >
                                        > 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
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ---
                                        > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
                                        > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                                        > Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 29/10/2004
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ---
                                        > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
                                        > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                                        > Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 29/10/2004
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > 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
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.