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

Re: [XTalk] Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... Leaving aside the question of whether a resurrection (an eschatological event) would have been placed by first century Jews in the same phenomenological
    Message 1 of 29 , Aug 1, 2008
      Gregory Leiby wrote:
      > Jeffrey,
      >
      > Paul does refer to Jesus coming back from the dead in his physical body, which to my understanding is the greatest miricle of all.
      >
      >
      Leaving aside the question of whether a resurrection (an eschatological
      event) would have been placed by first century Jews in the same
      phenomenological category as healings, exorcisms, bread multiplications,
      etc., what you overlook here is the fact that Paul (and the synoptic
      tradition) nowhere assumes or presents the Jesus' resurrection as
      something that Jesus performed. It is always in his (and the
      tradition's) view something God does to Jesus.

      Jeffrey

      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Chicago, Illinois
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • Daniel Grolin
      ... From: Gordon Raynal To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, 1 August, 2008 1:33:05 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Paul s silence on
      Message 2 of 29 , Aug 2, 2008
        ----- Original Message ----
        From: Gordon Raynal <scudi1@...>
        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, 1 August, 2008 1:33:05 AM
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker

        Dear Gordon,
        Sorry for the delay in answering.

        <<While you find midrash too broad and an unhelpful way to categorize
        the story writers imaginative process, I will simply have to
        disagree. One can see this process within the confines of the Hebrew
        Scriptures (look at the Flight from Egypt narrative as a prime
        example (the layers of early and later story telling that are in the
        received text we have and then the various ways the story is played
        over in the Psalms, the Prophets and then the extra Biblical
        writings). I find this sort very illuminative of the story telling
        traditions and the connections to the Gospels are blatantly obvious
        in many ways. Take, for example, the opening movements in the
        Synoptic stories of Jesus... Israel of old went to the waters, passed
        through the waters, spent 40 years in the wilderness, entered the
        land in triumph/ Jesus the Christ recapitulates this movement in
        Mark's Gospel... to the river, through the river, 40 (days not years)
        in the wilderness and then he enters the land victoriously casting
        out demons, not Canaanites. The play over plot framings, particular
        stories, particular theological and ethical and communal issues is
        directly related to this old, old pattern of story telling which we
        clearly can see within the bounds of TANAK and then see practiced,
        for example, from Mark to Matthew and Luke. So we will have to
        disagree here, and...>>
         
        Allow me to clarify. What I am proposing is not that the type of intertext which you have pointed to are not there. What I am suggesting is that these forms of intertext, are not a distinctly Jewish in nature, they are only of the sort that you have in any type of literature. My objection is not with the idea that we have intertext in the Gospels, my objection is that using "midrash" will appear to suggest that we are dealing in genre. Phrases like a "type of literature" or speaking of this or that as "being" midrash. On the other hand it is fair to speak of pesher as a genre and to point out the clear similarities in method used by authors of DSS and the evangelists, I think is entirely appropriate.

        <<here, as well. I also don't agree that Jesus, the historical fellow,
        is best understood under the rubric of "prophet." That is certainly
        one of the ways he came to be cast later on in the rich soup of
        titles and roles ascribed to him. No argument there. But on the
        basis of what I think we can know about the authentic speech of Jesus
        and the way the core of that authentic speech was preserved (both in
        words and other sorts of formulations) I think the best "position
        description for him (or title) is that of "a sage" or better "a
        Jewish wisdom word artist!" Why? Because I think what we can know
        of the fellow is found in the wisdom aphorisms and parables. Now,
        could he have also been a healer? Of course. I have nothing against
        that idea, but I simply see no evidence for that view>>
         
        Obviously this opens the field wide open for any number of discussions. First of all there are some underlying methodological issues that at the outset are not a given. Now following, Drapper, Horsley, and Kelber and others, I have started to question the soundness of the current trends in Form Criticism (e.g. see "Oral Performance , Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q" ed. Horsley). Horsley's criticism of Theissen's broadly accepted theory of Wandering Radicals has also made me reconsider the accepted model of Christian origins (Horsley, "Sociology and the Jesus Movement"). Without endorsing the approach I could also point to Sanders who starts not with sayings, to find out who Jesus was (which almost other HJ scholars do), but start with an event, namely the condemnation of the temple. From there he adopts the view of Jesus as an oracle prophet (Sanders, "Jesus and Judaism"). While I do not agree with Sanders conclusion I think there is a
        methodological issue that he brings into focus with his approach.

        Now you point out that what we can know that Jesus was a word smith. I will go further and say we can be fairly certain that he was an oratory genius, but that does not contradict the preposition that he was a healer, or prophet. Furthermore the proposition that Jesus was the leader of a prophetic movement also has limited usefulness. Clearly the Jesus Movement had something that other prophetic movements, whether action prophets or oracle prophets, which enabled it to survive the death of its founder. Jesus' social program was a rallying point for group formation (e.g. Malina's 'Early Christian Groups: Using small group formation theory to explain Christian organization' in Esler "Modelling early Christianity: Social-scientific studies of the New Testament in its context").

        My appeal to prophetic movements is not that it can best explain the origins of Christianity, but to point out that how Jesus was understood was not merely a function of oral communication, but also action. Crossan has made this point in connection with his later clarification of his position of Jesus and cynics ("Birth of Christianity"). People understand what they perceive through what Berger and Luckmann term the social construction of reality. These heads of prophetic movements not only spoke, but also acted in such a way as to communicate their claim. My point therefore is that we should not assume that Jesus merely communicated and was communicated in speeches, but that part of the communication was carried out through doing. Furthermore since traditional stories of great figures of the past was part of the social construction of reality Jesus would be able to make the claim of being "like the prophets of old" through acts that would be interpreted
        precisely so.

        Now we agree that these stories suggest the perception by some followers of Jesus was a Elisha-Elijah figure. I would add that this view also appears in the saying tradition. My question, however, is what should one make of this early view of Jesus? I would say we should take it seriously, and explore whether or not such a view may have its origin with Jesus. My first question is where are we most likely to find such a view of Jesus, and my answer is that Galilee was probably a place where Elisha and Elijah enjoyed a great deal of popularity, since this was where they were active. The bulk of miracle stories also bear traces of sharing concerns of peasants/artisans. These stories would be of interest and be circulated by people of lower class who were the primary recipients of the benefit of these miracles in the narratives themselves.

        None of this is a denial of the presence of intertext in these written texts that we are left with, but the presence of intertext does not mean that the narrative itself is purely a construction of source texts that the evangelist composed.

        I think that it is time the scholarly community re-examined the soundness of how Wrede is used and the discrediting of the Markan narrative tradition. I think Theissen's "The Gospels in context" takes some initial steps in showing the locale of some of the Markan traditions. But I think on the whole the practice of Form Criticism needs to be reconsidered.

        Regards,

        Daniel Grolin


        __________________________________________________________
        Not happy with your email address?.
        Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
      • Gordon Raynal
        Hi Daniel, Thanks for the note. ... Interesting way of putting this. You re worried about will appear to suggest we are dealing in genre.... Haggadah
        Message 3 of 29 , Aug 2, 2008
          Hi Daniel,
          Thanks for the note.

          On Aug 2, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Daniel Grolin wrote:
          >
          >
          > Dear Gordon,
          > Sorry for the delay in answering.
          >
          > Allow me to clarify. What I am proposing is not that the type of
          > intertext which you have pointed to are not there. What I am
          > suggesting is that these forms of intertext, are not a distinctly
          > Jewish in nature, they are only of the sort that you have in any
          > type of literature. My objection is not with the idea that we have
          > intertext in the Gospels, my objection is that using "midrash" will
          > appear to suggest that we are dealing in genre. Phrases like a
          > "type of literature" or speaking of this or that as "being"
          > midrash. On the other hand it is fair to speak of pesher as a genre
          > and to point out the clear similarities in method used by authors
          > of DSS and the evangelists, I think is entirely appropriate.

          Interesting way of putting this. You're worried about "will appear
          to suggest we are dealing in genre...." Haggadah midrash is one kind
          of creative interpretation process and I'm using it in that sense.
          The genre is "gospel," of course. The key issue is what is the
          nature of these things called "gospels?" Are they essentially
          biographical in nature, rooted in "witnesses" reports that are shaped
          by theological and ethical teaching considerations? Or are they
          creative, imaginative theological/ ethical proclamation works
          essentially rooted in a whole matrix of different sources which
          include remembered words, memories of the times, theological
          characterizations, OT Scriptures retold in terms of said "character,"
          ethical musings, etc? You know which side of the track I'm on. And
          I will stick with midrash because I think the essential plot
          structures, many particular scenes and the use of direct textual
          references are well described by the term "midrash."
          >
          > <<here, as well. I also don't agree that Jesus, the historical fellow,
          > is best understood under the rubric of "prophet." That is certainly
          > one of the ways he came to be cast later on in the rich soup of
          > titles and roles ascribed to him. No argument there. But on the
          > basis of what I think we can know about the authentic speech of Jesus
          > and the way the core of that authentic speech was preserved (both in
          > words and other sorts of formulations) I think the best "position
          > description for him (or title) is that of "a sage" or better "a
          > Jewish wisdom word artist!" Why? Because I think what we can know
          > of the fellow is found in the wisdom aphorisms and parables. Now,
          > could he have also been a healer? Of course. I have nothing against
          > that idea, but I simply see no evidence for that view>>
          >
          > Obviously this opens the field wide open for any number of
          > discussions. First of all there are some underlying methodological
          > issues that at the outset are not a given. Now following, Drapper,
          > Horsley, and Kelber and others, I have started to question the
          > soundness of the current trends in Form Criticism (e.g. see "Oral
          > Performance , Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q" ed.
          > Horsley). Horsley's criticism of Theissen's broadly accepted theory
          > of Wandering Radicals has also made me reconsider the accepted
          > model of Christian origins (Horsley, "Sociology and the Jesus
          > Movement"). Without endorsing the approach I could also point to
          > Sanders who starts not with sayings, to find out who Jesus was
          > (which almost other HJ scholars do), but start with an event,
          > namely the condemnation of the temple. From there he adopts the
          > view of Jesus as an oracle prophet (Sanders, "Jesus and Judaism").
          > While I do not agree with Sanders conclusion I think there is a
          > methodological issue that he brings into focus with his approach.

          Nicely put. And I appreciate your clarity on defining your
          position. In contrast to your position where I start is with an
          interface of "the mission" and the core dynamics/ espoused ethos of
          that mission. I think that is the brilliance of Crossan's original
          big Jesus book. Where I disagree with Crossan is the picturing of
          this as "a wandering radicals" movement. The movement and the
          instructions are, in my book, simply a functional part and necessity
          of going to houses. (I would call this "a reconciled home
          movement") Yes, the leaving and going for those who did imparted
          some of the message, but "the message" is nicely summed up across the
          resources in relationship to "Speak Peace to this house." (Paul's "a
          ministry of reconciliation," Ep. James "a harvest of righteousness
          is sown in peace for those who make peace," from G. Thomas 48 "If two
          make peace in a single house...," Mark's "Have salt in yourself and
          be at peace with one another." etc.) I think this is what is at key
          and core and I think the aphorism summaries that we see in such as
          the beatitudes, the common matrix of sayings between Q or if you
          prefer Matthew and Luke and the opening of the Didache show us the
          core ethos. And those words? They are wisdom words.
          >
          > Now you point out that what we can know that Jesus was a word
          > smith. I will go further and say we can be fairly certain that he
          > was an oratory genius, but that does not contradict the preposition
          > that he was a healer, or prophet. Furthermore the proposition that
          > Jesus was the leader of a prophetic movement also has limited
          > usefulness. Clearly the Jesus Movement had something that other
          > prophetic movements, whether action prophets or oracle prophets,
          > which enabled it to survive the death of its founder. Jesus' social
          > program was a rallying point for group formation (e.g. Malina's
          > 'Early Christian Groups: Using small group formation theory to
          > explain Christian organization' in Esler "Modelling early
          > Christianity: Social-scientific studies of the New Testament in its
          > context").

          I quite like your "oratory genius" words and I agree. After all, we
          are still pondering the the Sermon on the Mount, the Parable of the
          Prodigal, etc. 2 millennia later:)!

          And from the above paragraph, you will understand that I think that
          something "which enabled it to survive the death of its
          founder" (although I actually want to call that "" a group effort)
          is that it was effective in connecting a series of homes in a series
          of communities. Again, the focus wasn't on everyone "becoming a
          wandering radical!" If that were the case the whole thing would have
          died out:)! But a bunch of homes where people experienced and shared
          a sense of reconciliation, forgiveness, shalom, joy around the table,
          good stories, wise ethical musings, and dare I say... faith? What
          Jesus and friends did worked! It didn't start working after he went
          to Jerusalem or after he died or after he went to heaven, it worked
          in homes. Because it did, the Romans could crush the Temple, destroy
          the structures, etc., but short of complete annihilation of homes of
          these folks and those who lived in them, they could not have
          destroyed this working plan.
          >
          > My appeal to prophetic movements is not that it can best explain
          > the origins of Christianity, but to point out that how Jesus was
          > understood was not merely a function of oral communication, but
          > also action. Crossan has made this point in connection with his
          > later clarification of his position of Jesus and cynics ("Birth of
          > Christianity"). People understand what they perceive through what
          > Berger and Luckmann term the social construction of reality. These
          > heads of prophetic movements not only spoke, but also acted in such
          > a way as to communicate their claim. My point therefore is that we
          > should not assume that Jesus merely communicated and was
          > communicated in speeches, but that part of the communication was
          > carried out through doing. Furthermore since traditional stories of
          > great figures of the past was part of the social construction of
          > reality Jesus would be able to make the claim of being "like the
          > prophets of old" through acts that would be interpreted
          > precisely so.

          As I'm sure you're aware from my position, I just don't think we have
          diary like entries of "today Jesus went here and did that and said
          that." I simply don't think the Gospels give us access to that kind
          of historical/ biographical data. Here you're moving from
          generalities about prophetic movements and prophetic characters. To
          move with you I'd need some actual materials I took as reports. I
          don't see them and so I find this "well prophets behaved like this"
          and "we have some stories of Jesus acting in the role of behaving
          like this," so this must have historical basis. I don't buy that.
          Why?... because of course I think of the Elijah/ Elisha stories,
          themselves are lovely creations and that the Gospel authors quite
          knowlingly utilized those creations in their creativity. And why the
          press to do this? Well, after the destruction of the Temple and the
          crushing that Vespasian and Titus did, that had to be centrally
          addressed. And the go to stories to do that are, of course, the
          prophetic stories. What richer source for thinking about Jesus and
          the movement in the face of Rome than to turn to stories that dealt
          with the 12 Tribe nation falling apart and the wrath of the Assyrians
          and Babylonians to deal with this latest wrath? They were go to
          works to frame the message and mission in light of what happened.
          >
          > Now we agree that these stories suggest the perception by some
          > followers of Jesus was a Elisha-Elijah figure. I would add that
          > this view also appears in the saying tradition. My question,
          > however, is what should one make of this early view of Jesus? I
          > would say we should take it seriously, and explore whether or not
          > such a view may have its origin with Jesus. My first question is
          > where are we most likely to find such a view of Jesus, and my
          > answer is that Galilee was probably a place where Elisha and Elijah
          > enjoyed a great deal of popularity, since this was where they were
          > active. The bulk of miracle stories also bear traces of sharing
          > concerns of peasants/artisans. These stories would be of interest
          > and be circulated by people of lower class who were the primary
          > recipients of the benefit of these miracles in the narratives
          > themselves.

          To use my term, midrash or your term, interface... well, in the first
          place I do rather imagine it came up in family and group discussions
          in the homes while Jesus was around. And this being "a
          reconciliation movement" do understand that I think there were
          especially "prophetic minded" and "apocalyptically prophetic minded"
          in the mix. Sort of what pious Jews do... talk about ethics and God
          in terms of the received stories:)! But beyond that, surely the turn
          to Scriptures and racing all over them took off after Jesus was
          executed. Remind me of the order of the books most quoted and
          referred to? But Deuteronomy, Psalms and Isaiah are up there at the
          top. I'd expect nothing less. And there is is. Matthew, of course,
          is so particularly lovely with this because he just out and out says,
          "this or that" was said or done to fulfill Scriptures. Once we get
          to narrative Gospels (whether you accept the more traditional dating
          for Mark of around 70 or my dating of around 80) we're talking 40 or
          50 years out. And we are talking either "the real last days" or
          "after the real last days" of Jerusalem and the Temple establishment
          there. The need to deal with that either way was surely paramount
          and the Gospels let us see how that was done. That Jesus was cast a
          prophet of particularly the apocalyptic sort in light of those
          realities is none too surprising at all.
          >
          > None of this is a denial of the presence of intertext in these
          > written texts that we are left with, but the presence of intertext
          > does not mean that the narrative itself is purely a construction of
          > source texts that the evangelist composed.
          >
          > I think that it is time the scholarly community re-examined the
          > soundness of how Wrede is used and the discrediting of the Markan
          > narrative tradition. I think Theissen's "The Gospels in context"
          > takes some initial steps in showing the locale of some of the
          > Markan traditions. But I think on the whole the practice of Form
          > Criticism needs to be reconsidered.

          Daniel, to do what you're hoping for would require more historical
          data, not yet another reading paradigm. I wish we had that data. I
          truly do. I would be more than happy to find out Jesus was a healer,
          working prophetic signs, etc. But for that I'd need data. That
          said, I'd still stick with this approach I've outlined, because if
          the fellow Jesus did heal and perform signs and utter prophetic
          oracles, the house instructions, movement, ethos... and yes, those
          wisdom sayings are where I'd still find "the center" of these
          traditions. And back to your "oratory genius" point, whatever else
          Jesus said or did, I think the center of the man's genius is found in
          those aphorisms and parables.
          >
          > Regards,

          and to you and thanks for this note. a pleasure to chat.

          Gordon Raynal
          Inman, SC
          >
          > Daniel Grolin
          >
        • Bob Schacht
          At 08:37 AM 8/2/2008, Daniel Grolin wrote: Daniel, Let me take this opportunity to thank you, and a number of others, for their substantive contributions to
          Message 4 of 29 , Aug 2, 2008
            At 08:37 AM 8/2/2008, Daniel Grolin wrote:



            Daniel,
            Let me take this opportunity to thank you, and a number of others, for
            their substantive contributions to the recent exchanges on XTalk, beginning
            with Jeffrey Gibson's initial question on July 29 that set the current set
            of threads in motion. I think such contributions as these are what keeps
            several hundred people subscribed to this list.

            A little bit more below.



            >----- Original Message ----
            >From: Gordon Raynal <scudi1@...>
            >To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
            >Sent: Friday, 1 August, 2008 1:33:05 AM
            >Subject: Re: [XTalk] Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker
            >
            >Dear Gordon,
            >Sorry for the delay in answering.
            >
            ><<While you find midrash too broad and an unhelpful way to categorize
            >the story writers imaginative process, I will simply have to
            >disagree. One can see this process within the confines of the Hebrew
            >Scriptures (look at the Flight from Egypt narrative as a prime
            >example (the layers of early and later story telling that are in the
            >received text we have and then the various ways the story is played
            >over in the Psalms, the Prophets and then the extra Biblical
            >writings). I find this sort very illuminative of the story telling
            >traditions and the connections to the Gospels are blatantly obvious
            >in many ways. Take, for example, the opening movements in the
            >Synoptic stories of Jesus... Israel of old went to the waters, passed
            >through the waters, spent 40 years in the wilderness, entered the
            >land in triumph/ Jesus the Christ recapitulates this movement in
            >Mark's Gospel... to the river, through the river, 40 (days not years)
            >in the wilderness and then he enters the land victoriously casting
            >out demons, not Canaanites. The play over plot framings, particular
            >stories, particular theological and ethical and communal issues is
            >directly related to this old, old pattern of story telling which we
            >clearly can see within the bounds of TANAK and then see practiced,
            >for example, from Mark to Matthew and Luke. So we will have to
            >disagree here, and...>>
            >
            >Allow me to clarify. What I am proposing is not that the type of intertext
            >which you have pointed to are not there. What I am suggesting is that
            >these forms of intertext, are not a distinctly Jewish in nature, they are
            >only of the sort that you have in any type of literature. My objection is
            >not with the idea that we have intertext in the Gospels, my objection is
            >that using "midrash" will appear to suggest that we are dealing in genre.
            >Phrases like a "type of literature" or speaking of this or that as "being"
            >midrash. On the other hand it is fair to speak of pesher as a genre and to
            >point out the clear similarities in method used by authors of DSS and the
            >evangelists, I think is entirely appropriate.
            >
            ><<here, as well. I also don't agree that Jesus, the historical fellow,
            >is best understood under the rubric of "prophet." That is certainly
            >one of the ways he came to be cast later on in the rich soup of
            >titles and roles ascribed to him. No argument there. But on the
            >basis of what I think we can know about the authentic speech of Jesus
            >and the way the core of that authentic speech was preserved (both in
            >words and other sorts of formulations) I think the best "position
            >description for him (or title) is that of "a sage" or better "a
            >Jewish wisdom word artist!" Why? Because I think what we can know
            >of the fellow is found in the wisdom aphorisms and parables. Now,
            >could he have also been a healer? Of course. I have nothing against
            >that idea, but I simply see no evidence for that view>>
            >
            >Obviously this opens the field wide open for any number of discussions.
            >First of all there are some underlying methodological issues that at the
            >outset are not a given. Now following, Drapper, Horsley, and Kelber and
            >others, I have started to question the soundness of the current trends in
            >Form Criticism (e.g. see "Oral Performance , Popular Tradition, and Hidden
            >Transcript in Q" ed. Horsley). Horsley's criticism of Theissen's broadly
            >accepted theory of Wandering Radicals has also made me reconsider the
            >accepted model of Christian origins (Horsley, "Sociology and the Jesus
            >Movement"). Without endorsing the approach I could also point to Sanders
            >who starts not with sayings, to find out who Jesus was (which almost other
            >HJ scholars do), but start with an event, namely the condemnation of the
            >temple. From there he adopts the view of Jesus as an oracle prophet
            >(Sanders, "Jesus and Judaism"). While I do not agree with Sanders
            >conclusion I think there is a methodological issue that he brings into
            >focus with his approach.

            I for one would welcome more discussion on these methodological issues.
            For example, methodologically speaking, if we follow your characterization
            of Sanders' method, how does one rightly choose an event *as the place to
            start,* and how does one frame such an event in a neutral way that does not
            presuppose where the ensuing discussion will wind up?

            I suppose one could begin with an event established outside of the canon,
            and hence putatively independent-- e.g. something from Josephus
            (acknowledging that there are problems with the independence of Josephus,
            as well).


            >Now you point out that what we can know that Jesus was a word smith. I
            >will go further and say we can be fairly certain that he was an oratory
            >genius, but that does not contradict the preposition that he was a healer,
            >or prophet. Furthermore the proposition that Jesus was the leader of a
            >prophetic movement also has limited usefulness. Clearly the Jesus Movement
            >had something that other prophetic movements, whether action prophets or
            >oracle prophets, which enabled it to survive the death of its founder.
            >Jesus' social program was a rallying point for group formation (e.g.
            >Malina's 'Early Christian Groups: Using small group formation theory to
            >explain Christian organization' in Esler "Modelling early Christianity:
            >Social-scientific studies of the New Testament in its context").
            >
            >My appeal to prophetic movements is not that it can best explain the
            >origins of Christianity, but to point out that how Jesus was understood
            >was not merely a function of oral communication, but also action. Crossan
            >has made this point in connection with his later clarification of his
            >position of Jesus and cynics ("Birth of Christianity"). People understand
            >what they perceive through what Berger and Luckmann term the social
            >construction of reality. These heads of prophetic movements not only
            >spoke, but also acted in such a way as to communicate their claim. My
            >point therefore is that we should not assume that Jesus merely
            >communicated and was communicated in speeches, but that part of the
            >communication was carried out through doing. Furthermore since traditional
            >stories of great figures of the past was part of the social construction
            >of reality Jesus would be able to make the claim of being "like the
            >prophets of old" through acts that would be interpreted
            > precisely so.
            >
            >Now we agree that these stories suggest the perception by some followers
            >of Jesus was a Elisha-Elijah figure. I would add that this view also
            >appears in the saying tradition. My question, however, is what should one
            >make of this early view of Jesus? I would say we should take it seriously,
            >and explore whether or not such a view may have its origin with Jesus. My
            >first question is where are we most likely to find such a view of Jesus,
            >and my answer is that Galilee was probably a place where Elisha and Elijah
            >enjoyed a great deal of popularity, since this was where they were active.
            >The bulk of miracle stories also bear traces of sharing concerns of
            >peasants/artisans. These stories would be of interest and be circulated by
            >people of lower class who were the primary recipients of the benefit of
            >these miracles in the narratives themselves.
            >
            >None of this is a denial of the presence of intertext in these written
            >texts that we are left with, but the presence of intertext does not mean
            >that the narrative itself is purely a construction of source texts that
            >the evangelist composed.
            >
            >I think that it is time the scholarly community re-examined the soundness
            >of how Wrede is used and the discrediting of the Markan narrative
            >tradition. I think Theissen's "The Gospels in context" takes some initial
            >steps in showing the locale of some of the Markan traditions. But I think
            >on the whole the practice of Form Criticism needs to be reconsidered.

            This too is a point worth debating. I wonder if we can draw Ted Weeden out
            of lurkdom?

            Bob Schacht
            University of Hawaii



            >Regards,
            >
            >Daniel Grolin
            >
            >
            > __________________________________________________________
            >Not happy with your email address?.
            >Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available
            >now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
            >
            >------------------------------------
            >
            >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
            >
            >
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Kenneth Litwak
            ... While you find midrash too broad and an unhelpful way to categorize the story writers imaginative process, I will simply have to disagree.Ken:  Gordon, so
            Message 5 of 29 , Aug 2, 2008
              --- On Thu, 7/31/08, Gordon Raynal <scudi1@...> wrote:
              > Dear Tony & Gordon,

              >

              > I would like to object to the proposition that the literary form of

              > the stories are "often midrashic". Not because it isn't true, but

              > because it isn't helpful. The manner in which the term is used is

              > simply too broad.

              >

              > Strack and Stemberger state ("Introduction to the Talmud and

              > Midrash", p. 235) that Midrash cannot really be defined, only

              > described (which is at the heart of the problem), and they do so as

              > follows: "a literature, oral or written, which stands in direct

              > relationship to a fixed canonical text ..." This furthermore

              > includes not only the text as they stand, but also the events they

              > refer to. Of course, taking the terms so broadly you might call the

              > Gospels midrash, but that is hardly helpful. Almost any surviving

              > Jewish text (and a great many Christian) can be termed midrash. In

              > other words Midrash is just "intertext". I object to the use of

              > Midrash, because it seems to imply that there is Jewish/Israelite

              > literature that does what the Gospels supposedly did by adopting

              > stories from the Elijah-Elisha cycle (and call it "midrash"). As

              > far as I have been able to learn that is not the case. The Gospels

              > do have something that looks like a form of Midrash,

              > namely Pesher.


              While you find midrash too broad and an unhelpful way to categorize

              the story writers imaginative process, I will simply have to

              disagree.Ken: 
              Gordon, so you are basically saying, "I don't care that I'm misusing a technical term ina way that no one else woudl support and that therefore is of no value in communication.  No matter who objects to it, I'm going to do it anyway."  Is that a fair summary?  Richard Hays in _Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul_ showed many years ago the problems of attaching the term "midrash" even to Paul's explicit interpretations of Scripture.  FIrst, in that case, and in yours, it is grossly anachronistic.  "MIdrash" as an established technique is from the Rabbinica period, after about 200 A.D., so far as we know.  Second, "midrash" is a form of interpretation, a way of explaining Scripture.  There is no evidence that it equals "taking elements fomr a biblcial narrative and inventing a completely new narrative about something else out of whole cloth."  So when you use midrash to describe anything in the gospels, it is simply invalid from a technical
              point of view.  Why do you insist on an invalid use of the word "midrash"?

                 On top of that, you have not actually pointed to any literature contemporary with or prior to the gospels that share the same genre(s) of bios or historiography that evince what you are suggesting.  You may not accept those genre identifications, but for example, I have not seen anyone provide any evidence at all that meaningfully challenges Richard Burrdige's demonstration from actual data (not merely assertions) that Mark is an example of Greco-Roman Bios.

                   Third, as to the specifics of the Elijah-Elisha narratives having parallels in the gospels. Thomas Brodie has demonstrated this well in many places.  However, an important point beyond or next to his needs to be made.

                 As many, such as Baumgarten or White have shown (White especially), no one ever recounts history-as-it-happened.  That's a 19th centuiry myth invented by von Ranke and others of a Positivist persuasion. Rather, we only ever write or read history-as-it-is-narrated.  When you connect this fact that hsitory is always and only what is narrated in precisely the way an author wishes to present it, and combine that with the fact Hellensitic historiographers sought eagerly to both imitate those who came before them and to show how those in their narratives were part of peoples in the past (see works by Marincola, as well as The Past is a Foreign Country), it is not at surprising that Luke, as one example, would seek to show how Jesus of Nazareth was like Elijah and Elisha in the past. 

                 However, it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, from a generic point of view (that is, the genre of Luke as Hellenisitic historiography), that Luke is only making those connections and narrating them because that is how it happened so far as he understood, as opposed to narrating other things he might have known or oculd have chosen to say. 

                 You seem to be making the facile assumption, indeed, one might say presupposing as an a priori, that because one or more elements in the Scriptures of Israel are echoed in some manner in a gospel narrative that htereore it os obvious that the gospel account is an invention and the story recounts something that never happened.  You have not offered anything to support that, however, except your repreated "I disagree."  With all due respect, such an argument would get a very poor grade from me if a student tried it. It carries no weight with me certainly.

              Ken Litwak

               

              _._,___


















              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Gordon Raynal
              Hi Ken, ... You are correct, of course that midrash is a technical term that is related to what you speak of, but it is also a term that I have heard used many
              Message 6 of 29 , Aug 3, 2008
                Hi Ken,
                On Aug 3, 2008, at 1:48 AM, Kenneth Litwak wrote:

                >
                > .Ken:
                > Gordon, so you are basically saying, "I don't care that I'm
                > misusing a technical term ina way that no one else woudl support
                > and that therefore is of no value in communication. No matter who
                > objects to it, I'm going to do it anyway." Is that a fair
                > summary? Richard Hays in _Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of
                > Paul_ showed many years ago the problems of attaching the term
                > "midrash" even to Paul's explicit interpretations of Scripture.
                > FIrst, in that case, and in yours, it is grossly anachronistic.
                > "MIdrash" as an established technique is from the Rabbinica period,
                > after about 200 A.D., so far as we know. Second, "midrash" is a
                > form of interpretation, a way of explaining Scripture. There is no
                > evidence that it equals "taking elements fomr a biblcial narrative
                > and inventing a completely new narrative about something else out
                > of whole cloth." So when you use midrash to describe anything in
                > the gospels, it is simply invalid from a technical
                > point of view. Why do you insist on an invalid use of the word
                > "midrash"?

                You are correct, of course that midrash is a technical term that is
                related to what you speak of, but it is also a term that I have heard
                used many times to talk about the particular creative story telling
                process we find in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures themselves.
                Where did I hear that? Well, one place was at the local temple and
                in several lovely discussions of the creativity we find within Torah,
                itself, not to mention the rest of the Tanak. The rabbi and the 2
                lay teachers (both college professor PhD's) freely used that term in
                regard to this particular kind of Hebraic/ Jewish story telling
                creativity. I think that is most appropriate and it is that that
                I've been talking about.
                >
                > On top of that, you have not actually pointed to any literature
                > contemporary with or prior to the gospels that share the same genre
                > (s) of bios or historiography that evince what you are suggesting.
                > You may not accept those genre identifications, but for example, I
                > have not seen anyone provide any evidence at all that meaningfully
                > challenges Richard Burrdige's demonstration from actual data (not
                > merely assertions) that Mark is an example of Greco-Roman Bios.

                Open the OT... there are a whole lot of stories to where you'll find
                exactly what I'm talking about. For a key one and I don't have time
                just now to do a verse by verse review of this and so will only give
                an off the top of the head response (and BTW... this is one of the
                things that aforementioned rabbi and teachers talked about), but the
                story of the escape from Egypt within those texts has a story of
                escaping slaves through the marsh land under YHWH Elohim's guidance,
                the Song of Miriam which adds the element of "horse and rider thrown
                into the sea," the ramping of this story to the whole text
                understanding of Moses with his Staff from God parting the waters,
                the Israelites safely marching through and then the Egyptians getting
                crushed. And then (again pardon my forgetting the dating) but the
                later rabbinic story that Moses didn't make for just one column of
                water to walk through, but rather God made for 12 columns, one for
                each tribe that is extra Torah text. That's a fine example of
                developmental creativity that is both behind and beyond the Exodus
                story. Fine by me, if you prefer using a different term for this
                kind of theological story creativity, but again the local rabbi was
                quite happy to use it.
                >
                > Third, as to the specifics of the Elijah-Elisha narratives
                > having parallels in the gospels. Thomas Brodie has demonstrated
                > this well in many places. However, an important point beyond or
                > next to his needs to be made.
                >
                > As many, such as Baumgarten or White have shown (White
                > especially), no one ever recounts history-as-it-happened. That's a
                > 19th centuiry myth invented by von Ranke and others of a Positivist
                > persuasion. Rather, we only ever write or read history-as-it-is-
                > narrated. When you connect this fact that hsitory is always and
                > only what is narrated in precisely the way an author wishes to
                > present it, and combine that with the fact Hellensitic
                > historiographers sought eagerly to both imitate those who came
                > before them and to show how those in their narratives were part of
                > peoples in the past (see works by Marincola, as well as The Past is
                > a Foreign Country), it is not at surprising that Luke, as one
                > example, would seek to show how Jesus of Nazareth was like Elijah
                > and Elisha in the past.

                All of this simply gets to our fundamental disagreement about what a
                narrative gospel is. You are obviously convinced by the authors you
                site that we're dealing with biography. Citing all these who
                convince you of this, does not convince me. I'm fine with
                disagreeing about this.
                >
                >
                > However, it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, from a
                > generic point of view (that is, the genre of Luke as Hellenisitic
                > historiography), that Luke is only making those connections and
                > narrating them because that is how it happened so far as he
                > understood, as opposed to narrating other things he might have
                > known or oculd have chosen to say.
                >
                > You seem to be making the facile assumption, indeed, one might
                > say presupposing as an a priori, that because one or more elements
                > in the Scriptures of Israel are echoed in some manner in a gospel
                > narrative that htereore it os obvious that the gospel account is an
                > invention and the story recounts something that never happened.
                > You have not offered anything to support that, however, except your
                > repreated "I disagree." With all due respect, such an argument
                > would get a very poor grade from me if a student tried it. It
                > carries no weight with me certainly.

                For you this is "facile." So be it. Again, I'd just say open the OT
                and there are bucket loads of stories where one can discover this
                kind of creative theological story telling.

                Gordon Raynal
                Inman, SC
                >
                > Ken Litwak
                >
              • Daniel Grolin
                Dear Ken, I agree with what you are saying here, even if I would not have put it so bluntly. I to think that Burridge s determination of the genre of the
                Message 7 of 29 , Aug 4, 2008
                  Dear Ken,

                  I agree with what you are saying here, even if I would not have put it so bluntly. I to think that Burridge's determination of the genre of the gospels as bioi as a major problem for those positing it as a largely imaginative work. In addition I would point to Byrskog's book "Story as history and history as story". Another book of possible relevance is Bauckham's "Jesus and the eyewitnesses", I have yet to read it and determine for myself if I find it viable.

                  Regards,
                  Daniel


                  __________________________________________________________
                  Not happy with your email address?.
                  Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
                • Kenneth Litwak
                  Hi Gordon,   I m not gong to intersperse my comments because that would not be helpful, even though I think that means I m breaking some protocol.   Instead
                  Message 8 of 29 , Aug 9, 2008
                    Hi Gordon,

                      I"m not gong to intersperse my comments because that would not be helpful, even though I think that means I'm breaking some protocol.   Instead I want to focus on what I see as a significant problem in your presentation. 

                       It is, I believe, axiomatic that a writer must craft a work in a genre that an audience can recognize and knows how to interpret.  I'm hardly the first person to say this, so I don't need to defend it other than to say that if a "gospel" were a special  genre, or sui generis, no one in the first century or afterwards even, would have had any idea what it was or how to read it or interpret it. 

                      This implies that the gospels were written according to established principles of well-recognized genres.  Otherwise, their audiences, from Rome to Ephesus, would have had  no idea what they were or how to read them.  So, with reference to your view,

                    1.  Name for me the principles or elements of midrash that a first-century audience, either Jewish, Gentile, or mixed, would have clearly recognized.  I can do that for Bios or historiography but midrash I can't. 

                    2.,  Can you tell me the Second Temple models (excluding the Scriptures of Israel) that would have been well-known as examples of midrash and that look like the gospels?

                    3.  What are the examples of midrash form prior to the first-century A.D., known across the empire, that feature a Jewish sage who looks like a cynic and nothing else?

                    4.  You point to the Scriptures of Israel as themselves being examples of midrash.  Since you cannot point to the story that lies behind the Exodus story and the like so that we can see clearly exactly how those original stories were modified and turned into fictional accounts that bear no relation to anything that ever happened, much as you seem to think the gospels are pure fantasy or close enough that they are useless for learning anything about any real event. That is what I gather you have been saying in your various posts.   Why is it that Jesus' contemporaries don't seem to have recognized the Exodus story as a fictional account based on some other story?  What a modern rabbi might have to say is not relevant for how the text was understood by first-century Jews or Gentiles.  Indeed, it seems rather odd that Josephus would rely upon what you consider total fiction in his efforts to defend the Jews as a noble and ancient race.

                    Ken Litwak

                    --- On Sun, 8/3/08, Gordon Raynal <scudi1@...> wrote:
                    From: Gordon Raynal <scudi1@...>
                    Subject: Re: [XTalk] Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker
                    To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                    Cc: "Michael Ensley" <mensley@...>
                    Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 10:47 AM











                    Hi Ken,

                    On Aug 3, 2008, at 1:48 AM, Kenneth Litwak wrote:



                    >

                    > .Ken:

                    > Gordon, so you are basically saying, "I don't care that I'm

                    > misusing a technical term ina way that no one else woudl support

                    > and that therefore is of no value in communication. No matter who

                    > objects to it, I'm going to do it anyway." Is that a fair

                    > summary? Richard Hays in _Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of

                    > Paul_ showed many years ago the problems of attaching the term

                    > "midrash" even to Paul's explicit interpretations of Scripture.

                    > FIrst, in that case, and in yours, it is grossly anachronistic.

                    > "MIdrash" as an established technique is from the Rabbinica period,

                    > after about 200 A.D., so far as we know. Second, "midrash" is a

                    > form of interpretation, a way of explaining Scripture. There is no

                    > evidence that it equals "taking elements fomr a biblcial narrative

                    > and inventing a completely new narrative about something else out

                    > of whole cloth." So when you use midrash to describe anything in

                    > the gospels, it is simply invalid from a technical

                    > point of view. Why do you insist on an invalid use of the word

                    > "midrash"?



                    You are correct, of course that midrash is a technical term that is

                    related to what you speak of, but it is also a term that I have heard

                    used many times to talk about the particular creative story telling

                    process we find in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures themselves.

                    Where did I hear that? Well, one place was at the local temple and

                    in several lovely discussions of the creativity we find within Torah,

                    itself, not to mention the rest of the Tanak. The rabbi and the 2

                    lay teachers (both college professor PhD's) freely used that term in

                    regard to this particular kind of Hebraic/ Jewish story telling

                    creativity. I think that is most appropriate and it is that that

                    I've been talking about.

                    >

                    > On top of that, you have not actually pointed to any literature

                    > contemporary with or prior to the gospels that share the same genre

                    > (s) of bios or historiography that evince what you are suggesting.

                    > You may not accept those genre identifications, but for example, I

                    > have not seen anyone provide any evidence at all that meaningfully

                    > challenges Richard Burrdige's demonstration from actual data (not

                    > merely assertions) that Mark is an example of Greco-Roman Bios.



                    Open the OT... there are a whole lot of stories to where you'll find

                    exactly what I'm talking about. For a key one and I don't have time

                    just now to do a verse by verse review of this and so will only give

                    an off the top of the head response (and BTW... this is one of the

                    things that aforementioned rabbi and teachers talked about), but the

                    story of the escape from Egypt within those texts has a story of

                    escaping slaves through the marsh land under YHWH Elohim's guidance,

                    the Song of Miriam which adds the element of "horse and rider thrown

                    into the sea," the ramping of this story to the whole text

                    understanding of Moses with his Staff from God parting the waters,

                    the Israelites safely marching through and then the Egyptians getting

                    crushed. And then (again pardon my forgetting the dating) but the

                    later rabbinic story that Moses didn't make for just one column of

                    water to walk through, but rather God made for 12 columns, one for

                    each tribe that is extra Torah text. That's a fine example of

                    developmental creativity that is both behind and beyond the Exodus

                    story. Fine by me, if you prefer using a different term for this

                    kind of theological story creativity, but again the local rabbi was

                    quite happy to use it.

                    >

                    > Third, as to the specifics of the Elijah-Elisha narratives

                    > having parallels in the gospels. Thomas Brodie has demonstrated

                    > this well in many places. However, an important point beyond or

                    > next to his needs to be made.

                    >

                    > As many, such as Baumgarten or White have shown (White

                    > especially), no one ever recounts history-as-it- happened. That's a

                    > 19th centuiry myth invented by von Ranke and others of a Positivist

                    > persuasion. Rather, we only ever write or read history-as-it- is-

                    > narrated. When you connect this fact that hsitory is always and

                    > only what is narrated in precisely the way an author wishes to

                    > present it, and combine that with the fact Hellensitic

                    > historiographers sought eagerly to both imitate those who came

                    > before them and to show how those in their narratives were part of

                    > peoples in the past (see works by Marincola, as well as The Past is

                    > a Foreign Country), it is not at surprising that Luke, as one

                    > example, would seek to show how Jesus of Nazareth was like Elijah

                    > and Elisha in the past.



                    All of this simply gets to our fundamental disagreement about what a

                    narrative gospel is. You are obviously convinced by the authors you

                    site that we're dealing with biography. Citing all these who

                    convince you of this, does not convince me. I'm fine with

                    disagreeing about this.

                    >

                    >

                    > However, it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, from a

                    > generic point of view (that is, the genre of Luke as Hellenisitic

                    > historiography) , that Luke is only making those connections and

                    > narrating them because that is how it happened so far as he

                    > understood, as opposed to narrating other things he might have

                    > known or oculd have chosen to say.

                    >

                    > You seem to be making the facile assumption, indeed, one might

                    > say presupposing as an a priori, that because one or more elements

                    > in the Scriptures of Israel are echoed in some manner in a gospel

                    > narrative that htereore it os obvious that the gospel account is an

                    > invention and the story recounts something that never happened.

                    > You have not offered anything to support that, however, except your

                    > repreated "I disagree." With all due respect, such an argument

                    > would get a very poor grade from me if a student tried it. It

                    > carries no weight with me certainly.



                    For you this is "facile." So be it. Again, I'd just say open the OT

                    and there are bucket loads of stories where one can discover this

                    kind of creative theological story telling.



                    Gordon Raynal

                    Inman, SC

                    >

                    > Ken Litwak

                    >



























                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Gordon Raynal
                    Hi Ken, ... Obviously humans tell stories and if the markers of the recognizable conditions of life on planet Earth are there, then it will be recognizable.
                    Message 9 of 29 , Aug 9, 2008
                      Hi Ken,

                      On Aug 9, 2008, at 3:27 AM, Kenneth Litwak wrote:

                      > Hi Gordon,
                      >
                      > I"m not gong to intersperse my comments because that would not be
                      > helpful, even though I think that means I'm breaking some
                      > protocol. Instead I want to focus on what I see as a significant
                      > problem in your presentation.
                      >
                      > It is, I believe, axiomatic that a writer must craft a work in a
                      > genre that an audience can recognize and knows how to interpret.
                      > I'm hardly the first person to say this, so I don't need to defend
                      > it other than to say that if a "gospel" were a special genre, or
                      > sui generis, no one in the first century or afterwards even, would
                      > have had any idea what it was or how to read it or interpret it.

                      Obviously humans tell stories and if the markers of the recognizable
                      conditions of life on planet Earth are there, then it will be
                      "recognizable." Narrative realism is a good term to describe the
                      craft of all such stories. As to how to interpret this particular
                      kind of story, interwoven into the very fabric of the story are the
                      authorial chosen keys. In Mark we are presented with the
                      foundational key from the outset... this is "a good news" of Jesus
                      Christ the Son of God. And, if you'll allow me to jump to John's
                      Gospel for a clear statement of the intent of all the gospels: "But
                      these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the
                      Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life
                      in his name." (John 20:31 NRSV)
                      >
                      >
                      > This implies that the gospels were written according to
                      > established principles of well-recognized genres. Otherwise, their
                      > audiences, from Rome to Ephesus, would have had no idea what they
                      > were or how to read them. So, with reference to your view,
                      >
                      > 1. Name for me the principles or elements of midrash that a first-
                      > century audience, either Jewish, Gentile, or mixed, would have
                      > clearly recognized. I can do that for Bios or historiography but
                      > midrash I can't.

                      If one accepts that the point of this kind of writing is theological
                      affirmation (sort of clear that Jesus is proclaimed from the start of
                      Mark as "Christ the Son of God"), ethical espousal and deliberation,
                      communal ethos affirmation and development centered around
                      characterization (identity affirmation of the founder), then the keys
                      to laying out the Scripture search to make for this characterization
                      are plain enough. Matthew takes Mark and makes it ever so explicit
                      from the beginning with the key choice of "son of Abraham" and "son
                      of David" as two of the prime characterization markers. As the
                      theology and ethics take off from the received heritage then one sees
                      the various kinds of moves utilized: direct quotation of Scriptures,
                      comparison with earlier characterizations, recapitulation of specific
                      events or series of events, actions and the words that go with them,
                      but also thematic or simply metaphorical association. These are core
                      elements that the gospel authors used quite creatively! As the
                      received weave of the Hebrew narrative is so rich they had a lot to
                      work with.
                      >
                      >
                      > 2., Can you tell me the Second Temple models (excluding the
                      > Scriptures of Israel) that would have been well-known as examples
                      > of midrash and that look like the gospels?

                      As I'm asking you (and all) to think in terms of the art of story
                      telling, then there are analogs in every culture found in the growth
                      of culturally specific story traditions. Just read works in Greek
                      mythology to see the wondrous imagination of those mythmakers. The
                      Israelite writers were not doing something odd or unrecognizable.
                      What differentiates the story telling process has to do with the
                      espoused theology and ethics. Midrash, as a term, is useful in
                      pointing to how the interweave of story telling built on top of
                      itself within the framework of espousing said theology, ethics and
                      social praxis.
                      >
                      > 3. What are the examples of midrash form prior to the first-
                      > century A.D., known across the empire, that feature a Jewish sage
                      > who looks like a cynic and nothing else?

                      Now this is an interesting sentence and I'm not entirely certain all
                      you are trying to imply with it. You'll have to open that up for
                      me. But, in the first place, I don't want to start with (capital C)
                      cynics. I want you to look backwards into the Israelite heritage
                      itself, first. And what do we find there? Wisdom works? Yes! Job,
                      Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, for those specifically
                      identified as wisdom works... and the first is a story book wisdom
                      book! Before proceeding onward from TANAK we also find noted wisdom
                      discourse across TANAK. And then proceeding onward we find that
                      these Hebrew folk had a very living wisdom heritage, as is seen in
                      such as ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon. Inside the Scriptures
                      and continuing wisdom discourse and wisdom story creativity was quite
                      alive among the Hebrew folk. And I would like to suggest to you that
                      such as the books of Ruth and Jonah are in fact extended parables and
                      that they provide nice wisdom crafted works we find in the OT
                      Scriptures themselves. But then you have already presented an
                      example, not native to Israel, and that is the Cynic philosophical
                      heritage. Well worth everyone's time to investigate some of the
                      stories and words about such as Diogenes of Sinope for comparison to
                      how such kinds of words work. Burton Mack's book on Q has a very
                      good discussion of the parallels and what was a bit different about
                      the Hebrew folk and Jesus and friends, in particular.

                      And I just have to say this... real wisdom communicates across all
                      cultures because "sense" makes sense:)!
                      >
                      > 4. You point to the Scriptures of Israel as themselves being
                      > examples of midrash. Since you cannot point to the story that lies
                      > behind the Exodus story and the like so that we can see clearly
                      > exactly how those original stories were modified and turned into
                      > fictional accounts that bear no relation to anything that ever
                      > happened, much as you seem to think the gospels are pure fantasy or
                      > close enough that they are useless for learning anything about any
                      > real event. That is what I gather you have been saying in your
                      > various posts. Why is it that Jesus' contemporaries don't seem to
                      > have recognized the Exodus story as a fictional account based on
                      > some other story? What a modern rabbi might have to say is not
                      > relevant for how the text was understood by first-century Jews or
                      > Gentiles. Indeed, it seems rather odd that Josephus would rely
                      > upon what you consider total fiction in his efforts to defend the
                      > Jews as a noble and ancient race.

                      My response to this paragraph: why do you assume I think the gospels
                      are well described by the term, "fantasy?" And why do you assume
                      that ancient folk did not understand the craft of story telling?

                      And I'll end on this related note. Nearly 30 years ago in my first
                      seminary course on theology, one of the very first discussions in the
                      class was on the nature of theological language. My very traditional
                      Reformed theology prof made it very clear that theological language
                      is the language of metaphor. Powerful, image rich story telling of
                      many kinds of genres is rooted in the language of metaphor, of
                      course, and hence story telling is a prime form of that theological
                      and ethical communication. Jesus understood that! He told
                      parables. I don't find it the least bit odd that his followers did
                      precisely the same sort of thing in his honor.

                      Gordon Raynal
                      Inman, SC
                      >
                      > Ken Litwak
                      >
                      >
                    • Ken Olson
                      Hi Ken, I ve had a lot of difficulty following many of the arguments about the gospels that are based on genre, so I m hoping you can clarify a few points for
                      Message 10 of 29 , Aug 9, 2008
                        Hi Ken,

                        I've had a lot of difficulty following many of the arguments about the gospels that are based on genre, so I'm hoping you can clarify a few points for me.

                        First, don't we have a large number of ancient works that don't fit easily into any single established genre (i.e., a "pure" genre), such as Apuleius' Memorphosis or Philostratus' Life of Apollonius, for example? And don't a number of works borrow elements from other genres, such as Thucydides' use of diagnosis in his history or, in the gospels, Mark's use of apocalyptic in a bios (if the gospels are indeed bioi)? It seems to me that genre conventions were never rigidly maintained, or at least they were often crossed. Finally, what genre would some of the apocryphal works like the Gospel of Peter or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas belong to? Were their authors' literary geniuses doing something that had never been done before, or were they following some known generic conventions?

                        Best,

                        Ken

                        Ken Olson, PhD Student, Duke University



                        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.comFrom: javajedi2@...: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 00:27:19 -0700Subject: [XTalk] Gospel Genre -- to Gordon




                        Hi Gordon, I"m not gong to intersperse my comments because that would not be helpful, even though I think that means I'm breaking some protocol. Instead I want to focus on what I see as a significant problem in your presentation. It is, I believe, axiomatic that a writer must craft a work in a genre that an audience can recognize and knows how to interpret. I'm hardly the first person to say this, so I don't need to defend it other than to say that if a "gospel" were a special genre, or sui generis, no one in the first century or afterwards even, would have had any idea what it was or how to read it or interpret it. This implies that the gospels were written according to established principles of well-recognized genres. Otherwise, their audiences, from Rome to Ephesus, would have had no idea what they were or how to read them. So, with reference to your view,1. Name for me the principles or elements of midrash that a first-century audience, either Jewish, Gentile, or mixed, would have clearly recognized. I can do that for Bios or historiography but midrash I can't. 2., Can you tell me the Second Temple models (excluding the Scriptures of Israel) that would have been well-known as examples of midrash and that look like the gospels?3. What are the examples of midrash form prior to the first-century A.D., known across the empire, that feature a Jewish sage who looks like a cynic and nothing else?4. You point to the Scriptures of Israel as themselves being examples of midrash. Since you cannot point to the story that lies behind the Exodus story and the like so that we can see clearly exactly how those original stories were modified and turned into fictional accounts that bear no relation to anything that ever happened, much as you seem to think the gospels are pure fantasy or close enough that they are useless for learning anything about any real event. That is what I gather you have been saying in your various posts. Why is it that Jesus' contemporaries don't seem to have recognized the Exodus story as a fictional account based on some other story? What a modern rabbi might have to say is not relevant for how the text was understood by first-century Jews or Gentiles. Indeed, it seems rather odd that Josephus would rely upon what you consider total fiction in his efforts to defend the Jews as a noble and ancient race.Ken Litwak--- On Sun, 8/3/08, Gordon Raynal <scudi1@...> wrote:From: Gordon Raynal <scudi1@...>Subject: Re: [XTalk] Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle workerTo: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.comCc: "Michael Ensley" <mensley@...>Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 10:47 AMHi Ken,On Aug 3, 2008, at 1:48 AM, Kenneth Litwak wrote:>> .Ken:> Gordon, so you are basically saying, "I don't care that I'm > misusing a technical term ina way that no one else woudl support > and that therefore is of no value in communication. No matter who > objects to it, I'm going to do it anyway." Is that a fair > summary? Richard Hays in _Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of > Paul_ showed many years ago the problems of attaching the term > "midrash" even to Paul's explicit interpretations of Scripture. > FIrst, in that case, and in yours, it is grossly anachronistic. > "MIdrash" as an established technique is from the Rabbinica period, > after about 200 A.D., so far as we know. Second, "midrash" is a > form of interpretation, a way of explaining Scripture. There is no > evidence that it equals "taking elements fomr a biblcial narrative > and inventing a completely new narrative about something else out > of whole cloth." So when you use midrash to describe anything in > the gospels, it is simply invalid from a technical> point of view. Why do you insist on an invalid use of the word > "midrash"?You are correct, of course that midrash is a technical term that is related to what you speak of, but it is also a term that I have heard used many times to talk about the particular creative story telling process we find in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures themselves. Where did I hear that? Well, one place was at the local temple and in several lovely discussions of the creativity we find within Torah, itself, not to mention the rest of the Tanak. The rabbi and the 2 lay teachers (both college professor PhD's) freely used that term in regard to this particular kind of Hebraic/ Jewish story telling creativity. I think that is most appropriate and it is that that I've been talking about.>> On top of that, you have not actually pointed to any literature > contemporary with or prior to the gospels that share the same genre > (s) of bios or historiography that evince what you are suggesting. > You may not accept those genre identifications, but for example, I > have not seen anyone provide any evidence at all that meaningfully > challenges Richard Burrdige's demonstration from actual data (not > merely assertions) that Mark is an example of Greco-Roman Bios.Open the OT... there are a whole lot of stories to where you'll find exactly what I'm talking about. For a key one and I don't have time just now to do a verse by verse review of this and so will only give an off the top of the head response (and BTW... this is one of the things that aforementioned rabbi and teachers talked about), but the story of the escape from Egypt within those texts has a story of escaping slaves through the marsh land under YHWH Elohim's guidance, the Song of Miriam which adds the element of "horse and rider thrown into the sea," the ramping of this story to the whole text understanding of Moses with his Staff from God parting the waters, the Israelites safely marching through and then the Egyptians getting crushed. And then (again pardon my forgetting the dating) but the later rabbinic story that Moses didn't make for just one column of water to walk through, but rather God made for 12 columns, one for each tribe that is extra Torah text. That's a fine example of developmental creativity that is both behind and beyond the Exodus story. Fine by me, if you prefer using a different term for this kind of theological story creativity, but again the local rabbi was quite happy to use it.>> Third, as to the specifics of the Elijah-Elisha narratives > having parallels in the gospels. Thomas Brodie has demonstrated > this well in many places. However, an important point beyond or > next to his needs to be made.>> As many, such as Baumgarten or White have shown (White > especially), no one ever recounts history-as-it- happened. That's a > 19th centuiry myth invented by von Ranke and others of a Positivist > persuasion. Rather, we only ever write or read history-as-it- is- > narrated. When you connect this fact that hsitory is always and > only what is narrated in precisely the way an author wishes to > present it, and combine that with the fact Hellensitic > historiographers sought eagerly to both imitate those who came > before them and to show how those in their narratives were part of > peoples in the past (see works by Marincola, as well as The Past is > a Foreign Country), it is not at surprising that Luke, as one > example, would seek to show how Jesus of Nazareth was like Elijah > and Elisha in the past.All of this simply gets to our fundamental disagreement about what a narrative gospel is. You are obviously convinced by the authors you site that we're dealing with biography. Citing all these who convince you of this, does not convince me. I'm fine with disagreeing about this.>>> However, it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, from a > generic point of view (that is, the genre of Luke as Hellenisitic > historiography) , that Luke is only making those connections and > narrating them because that is how it happened so far as he > understood, as opposed to narrating other things he might have > known or oculd have chosen to say.>> You seem to be making the facile assumption, indeed, one might > say presupposing as an a priori, that because one or more elements > in the Scriptures of Israel are echoed in some manner in a gospel > narrative that htereore it os obvious that the gospel account is an > invention and the story recounts something that never happened. > You have not offered anything to support that, however, except your > repreated "I disagree." With all due respect, such an argument > would get a very poor grade from me if a student tried it. It > carries no weight with me certainly.For you this is "facile." So be it. Again, I'd just say open the OT and there are bucket loads of stories where one can discover this kind of creative theological story telling.Gordon RaynalInman, SC>> Ken Litwak>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Gordon Raynal
                        Hi Ken, ... Well, let me start here, as I haven t studied those other works, and simply make clear I don t think Mark or John are a bioi. ... G. Peter and
                        Message 11 of 29 , Aug 9, 2008
                          Hi Ken,
                          On Aug 9, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Ken Olson wrote:

                          >
                          > Hi Ken,
                          >
                          > I've had a lot of difficulty following many of the arguments about
                          > the gospels that are based on genre, so I'm hoping you can clarify
                          > a few points for me.
                          >
                          > First, don't we have a large number of ancient works that don't fit
                          > easily into any single established genre (i.e., a "pure" genre),
                          > such as Apuleius' Memorphosis or Philostratus' Life of Apollonius,
                          > for example?
                          > And don't a number of works borrow elements from other genres,
                          > such as Thucydides' use of diagnosis in his history or, in the
                          > gospels, Mark's use of apocalyptic in a bios (if the gospels are
                          > indeed bioi)?

                          Well, let me start here, as I haven't studied those other works, and
                          simply make clear I don't think Mark or John are a bioi.


                          > It seems to me that genre conventions were never rigidly
                          > maintained, or at least they were often crossed. Finally, what
                          > genre would some of the apocryphal works like the Gospel of Peter
                          > or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas belong to?

                          G. Peter and Inf. Thomas show the same kind of authorial creativity
                          we find in the canonical ones. One of the great things about the
                          discovery of those outside the canonical four is a greater breadth to
                          the creativity and a look at how long this creativity went on.
                          Against your good Duke professor and member of this list:)! I do
                          think there was a Q and Dr. K is right that we can identify layers in
                          that development. I also think G. Thomas is susceptible to the same
                          sort of analysis. I do think G. Mark is the first narrative Gospel
                          that we know of and I think 80 represents a good date for it.
                          Starting from there we have 2 other accepted texts that show the very
                          same creativity process quite alive and well! I think we can see in
                          and between texts this kind of creativity going on.

                          > Were their authors' literary geniuses doing something that had
                          > never been done before, or were they following some known generic
                          > conventions?

                          I think they are well described as literary geniuses. I think this
                          kind of story creativity had long and deep roots, generally in all
                          cultures, but specifically in the Hebrew Bible roots. The example I
                          offered "in text" is the creativity we see inside the Exodus escape
                          narrative. I continue to favor the call of this "midrash," because
                          it points to the core source stories and the way they were creatively
                          used.
                          >
                          > Best,

                          same to you,
                          Gordon Raynal
                          Inman, SC
                          >
                          > Ken
                          >
                          > Ken Olson, PhD Student, Duke University
                          >
                        • Rikk Watts
                          Jeffrey, Missed this... yes I m still alive (just got back from some months of travel, and a rollicking sail across the Pacific : ) ) I guess I d have to
                          Message 12 of 29 , Sep 22, 2008
                            Jeffrey,

                            Missed this... yes I'm still alive (just got back from some months of
                            travel, and a rollicking sail across the Pacific : ) )

                            I guess I'd have to think at what point in Paul's present letters he'd need
                            to do so. I.e. he appeals to his own wonder working, but not that often, and
                            usually in response to challenges to the authenticity of his apostleship.
                            That being so, I guess we'd expect some comment re Jesus' mighty deeds in a
                            similar situation. I can't think of any place in the Pauline materials where
                            he is defending Jesus.

                            Regards
                            Rikk


                            On 29/07/08 1:40 PM, "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...> wrote:

                            > To my knowledge Paul, who appeals to miracles he performed in his
                            > communities as attestations to the power of the Gospel, never speaks of
                            > any miracles that Jesus wrought, or of Jesus as a miracle worker. Am I
                            > correct in thinking that this is the case?
                            >
                            > And if it is, how is Paul's silence on this matter to be explained?
                            >
                            > Yours,
                            >
                            > Jeffrey
                          • Darrell Bock
                            Jeffrey: A thought to add to Rikk s response. The issue of the miracles was to attest to Jesus. The resurrection came to take that role in a comprehensive way,
                            Message 13 of 29 , Sep 23, 2008
                              Jeffrey:

                              A thought to add to Rikk's response. The issue of the miracles was to
                              attest to Jesus. The resurrection came to take that role in a
                              comprehensive way, since not only was it seen as God's vote, but
                              placed Jesus at God's side. As such it trumped everything else. Even
                              more fascinating is that Paul proclaims Jesus' role in creation (1 Cor
                              8:4-6; Col 1:15-20). One might call that a miracle. My point is that
                              the transcendent aspects of Jesus dominate Paul's presentation.


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