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

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

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Hi Dennis, ... Verse 27 has it s base in Mark 8:38, verse 28 in Mark 9:1. So, I think this is part of the language Mark created and was then redacted by both
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 3, 2008
      Hi Dennis,

      On Aug 2, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

      > Quite simply, Gordon, how would you explain Matthew 16.27/8 ? For
      > my part I endorse everything that Jack has written.
      > Dennis Goffin
      > Chorleywood, UK

      Verse 27 has it's base in Mark 8:38, verse 28 in Mark 9:1. So, I
      think this is part of the language Mark created and was then redacted
      by both Matthew and Luke to fit his characterization of Jesus Christ
      as fulfilling that Daniel, Enoch expectation. So in a word this is a
      Markan creation.

      And for whom you endorse, I am glad you have found the stir of this
      discussion helpful!

      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
      >
    • Dennis Goffin
      Are you then saying, Gordon, that for example Mark 9.1 is not the words of Jesus but merely a Markan creation ? If so, where do you stop ? And are you also not
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 3, 2008
        Are you then saying, Gordon, that for example Mark 9.1 is not the words of Jesus but merely a Markan creation ? If so, where do you stop ? And are you also not opening the door for it to be said equally that your favoured "sage" passages are likewise later creations ? I would also like to make the point that many of the parables you prize as part of your "wisdom" approach are on the subject of apocalyptic eschatology.
        Dennis Goffin UK




        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Gordon Raynal
        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: Michael Ensley
        Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 6:14 PM
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker


        Hi Dennis,

        On Aug 2, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

        > Quite simply, Gordon, how would you explain Matthew 16.27/8 ? For
        > my part I endorse everything that Jack has written.
        > Dennis Goffin
        > Chorleywood, UK

        Verse 27 has it's base in Mark 8:38, verse 28 in Mark 9:1. So, I
        think this is part of the language Mark created and was then redacted
        by both Matthew and Luke to fit his characterization of Jesus Christ
        as fulfilling that Daniel, Enoch expectation. So in a word this is a
        Markan creation.

        And for whom you endorse, I am glad you have found the stir of this
        discussion helpful!

        Gordon Raynal
        Inman, SC
        >




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Gordon Raynal
        Hi Dennis, ... Yes. But I don t like that word merely applied to fine creativity! ... I don t actually draw a precise line in the wisdom sayings themselves,
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 6, 2008
          Hi Dennis,
          On Aug 3, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

          > Are you then saying, Gordon, that for example Mark 9.1 is not the
          > words of Jesus but merely a Markan creation ?

          Yes. But I don't like that word "merely" applied to fine creativity!

          > If so, where do you stop ?

          I don't actually draw a precise line in the wisdom sayings
          themselves, if that is what you mean. I think the report that you
          find in the back of "The Five Gospels" is a fairly good listing of
          the words that belong to the man Jesus, although my list is a little
          longer. But actually I prefer to think not simply in terms of any of
          those particular sayings as being definitely from Jesus' own lips,
          but rather from the original wisdom banter (creativity) when Jesus
          was alive. I think the hallmark of Jesus' own creativity is found in
          those red and pink parables you will find noted in the 5 Gospels.
          But to give you a "for instance" of what I'm suggesting (and this can
          only be a guess, of course), but I can well imagine that Jesus
          might have told the parable of Good Sam and a hearer/ fellow banter
          partner, let's say Mary Magdalene or Peter, responding with the
          aphorism, "Love your enemies" and Jesus repeating that, "yes, love
          your enemies." I think this careful kind of "sayings study" can
          really only get us that close to Jesus.

          > And are you also not opening the door for it to be said equally
          > that your favoured "sage" passages are likewise later creations ?

          No doubt, it is possible. Such as Robert Price thinks the whole
          character of Jesus is an invention and he concludes whether or not
          there was a historical figure back there, the materials we have
          simply don't give us access to him. Nothing new in this position.
          I had lovely discussions with my Freshman history professor about
          just this in the early '70s. I, however, think that we can find that
          common mission agenda at the base of all of the resources we have and
          the constitutional language that surrounds it, hence I think we can
          find "the voice print" of the late 20's and in that "the voice print"
          of Jesus, himself. And again, those words are wisdom words.

          > I would also like to make the point that many of the parables you
          > prize as part of your "wisdom" approach are on the subject of
          > apocalyptic eschatology.

          A couple of points here. One, I do think we find parables that come
          from after Jesus included in the writings and that is just what I'd
          expect. Second, "apocalyptic" is a genre. How one understands and
          uses that genre is not simply "one way, implying one clear belief
          structure." I actually love the genre in both OT and NT. Just
          taught Daniel as part of a Spring SS class. Great book! And some of
          my favorite movies are rooted in the genre. But I do not believe
          that what Jesus and friends were up to for a very short time in the
          late 20's is appropriately defined as "a millennialist apocalyptic
          prophetic movement" as so many seem to think. Why? Because the
          program itself is not millennialist and I think we can show how
          apocalyptic writings and many other kinds of writings were used to
          interpret the base program at a later time. Read such as Burton
          Mack's book on Q or Kloppenborg's book on the layers of Q to see how
          prophetic and apocalyptic language was brought to bear in
          reinterpreting the original program. Said, "program" or "religio-
          social initiative," if you prefer, could be and was recast in a
          number of ways. We find tensions and conflicts in those recastings.
          And per my long note... a program/ initiative produced a bureaucracy.
          That always produces tensions, even in the most stable of times:)!
          And so, because of growing reflections after the death of Jesus,
          after the further movement growth (more people, more homes, more
          towns and more diversity in those homes and towns), after further
          social development and in terms of the rapidly changing times
          themselves, we find this scurrying all over not only the Israelite
          scriptures, but so also over cultural ideas and beliefs in more and
          more places. And so, yes, in all of this and in the continuing
          marvelous creativity that was ignited we find parables created that
          are inclusive of the apocalyptic genre and original wisdom genre
          parables reinterpreted with the apocalyptic genre thought. But
          remember we also find the very same materials reinterpreted in other
          manners. G. Thomas for me, like Q, can be broken apart in layers and
          there we see the progression from an original aphorisms and wisdom
          parables gathering to what 'd refer to as a spiritual/ meditative
          layer of interpretation and on towards an abstract philosophizing
          layer (I do not think it is appropriate to call G. Thomas "Gnostic,"
          but in that latter stage, perhaps "proto-Gnostic"). So there was
          also development of that variety.

          Hope this helps,

          Gordon Raynal
          Inman, SC
          Dennis Goffin UK
          >
          >
        • Ron Price
          ... Gordon, It seems to me that the JSem comes perilously close to circular reasoning on this issue. The fifth pillar of scholarly wisdom rejects an
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 11, 2008
            Gordon Raynal wrote:

            > The core ethical praxis language was presented
            > by Jesus in wisdom forms of communication. Even if one wants to
            > affirm Jesus also utilized apocalyptic speech, that speech was
            > secondary and not primary. Why say that? See the Sermon on the
            > Mount, Mark 4:33 ff, etc.

            Gordon,

            It seems to me that the JSem comes perilously close to circular reasoning on
            this issue. The 'fifth pillar of scholarly wisdom' rejects an eschatalogical
            Jesus, apparently before the completion of the source analysis. You appear
            to be doing the same here, for neither of your supporting texts (in their
            present form) go back before ca 70 CE when Mark was written - even worse if
            we take your own date for Mark!

            Bearing in mind that the Romans would have had no reason to crucify a mere
            wisdom teacher, I am curious to know if you have any better defence for your
            rejection of a primarily apocalyptic Jesus than quoting texts written at
            least 40 years after his death.

            Ron Price

            Derbyshire, UK

            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
          • Gordon Raynal
            ... Hi Ron, I ll let you take up the matter of circular reasoning with the Jesus Seminar. They are still alive and active and I seriously suggest that you
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 11, 2008
              On Aug 11, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Ron Price wrote:

              > Gordon Raynal wrote:
              >
              >> The core ethical praxis language was presented
              >> by Jesus in wisdom forms of communication. Even if one wants to
              >> affirm Jesus also utilized apocalyptic speech, that speech was
              >> secondary and not primary. Why say that? See the Sermon on the
              >> Mount, Mark 4:33 ff, etc.
              >
              > Gordon,
              >
              > It seems to me that the JSem comes perilously close to circular
              > reasoning on
              > this issue. The 'fifth pillar of scholarly wisdom' rejects an
              > eschatalogical
              > Jesus, apparently before the completion of the source analysis. You
              > appear
              > to be doing the same here, for neither of your supporting texts (in
              > their
              > present form) go back before ca 70 CE when Mark was written - even
              > worse if
              > we take your own date for Mark!

              Hi Ron,

              I'll let you take up the matter of "circular reasoning" with the
              Jesus Seminar. They are still alive and active and I seriously
              suggest that you present this subject to them.

              What I do want to comment about here is the need, as Crossan, for
              example, has talked about, for subject clarification as pertains to
              "eschatology" and related terms. We really need some language
              clarity in this conversation. "Eschatology" gets tossed about, as
              does "apocalyptic" (a genre term) by many as if, a.) that is the only
              kind of eschatology and b.) as a kind of eschatology it is a uniform
              belief structure. I think it would be most helpful if we could have
              some term clarification in this important arena of description.
              Hence the language of millenarian eschatology versus non-millenarian
              eschatology, as the basic frame of options. And then within those
              frames careful descriptions about how different pieces of literature
              nuance those major options. And then, with the use of the
              apocalyptic genre, how it is utilized and framed in relationship to
              other genres. I think these conversations often get very confusing
              as it is not entirely clear what a given person is affirming when
              they use such terms as "eschatological" and "apocalyptic."

              I don't have time today to spell out this analysis in full, but I
              will again simply say here, I do not believe that the mission program
              that we find laid out and then repeated or commented on in a number
              of sources (Q, Thomas, Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, Didache and
              indirectly in John) is itself "a millenniest" or "apocalyptic"
              program, but rather one that had a very "here and now" focus in it's
              foundation and expectation. And it is one that we see commented
              upon, developed, given rationale and filled out with more theological
              and ethical reflection from a number of different resources. And
              with this, the core speech that I can attribute to Jesus and his
              associates is wisdom speech. Wisdom speech is non-millennarian, but
              then it may be framed by millennarian thought and so utilized in that
              theological manner. In regard to the original program, I think the
              core motivation and expectation is well defined in that term Paul
              uses, "reconciliation." In terms of said original program (and not
              the later framing of it... hence the careful need to differentiate
              the original and the elaborations on top of the original) the "what
              to do" if rejected, is as "here and now" as one can state it (words
              about what to do if the householders don't receive the peace: "let
              your peace return to you," and what to do "the sent one's" only find
              rejection: "shake the dust off and move on." That the program came
              to be framed in a number of ways out of the broad resources found in
              the TANAK, should come as no surprise. And let me just emphasize
              this: If a reconciliation movement actually works, unlike a partisan
              movement that is built upon the gathering of like minded or closely
              similar minded folks, then what one will surely expect is that said
              reconciliation movement will have a number of voices/ viewpoints/
              sectarian views therein. As said movement moves from a first
              generation action plan to an enduring movement complete with a
              growing bureaucracy and therefore greater number of defined roles,
              power structures and rationales, then one should expect to find in
              such a mixed movement a variety of ideas about roles, power,
              rationales, etc. And do we find this? Yes, indeed we do. And
              because we can find these sorts of things it is possible to sketch
              out what was key and core and some of the developments therein.
              >
              > Bearing in mind that the Romans would have had no reason to crucify
              > a mere
              > wisdom teacher, I am curious to know if you have any better defence
              > for your
              > rejection of a primarily apocalyptic Jesus than quoting texts
              > written at
              > least 40 years after his death.

              You state this as if it is a truism. Two things. Let me remind you,
              if you do not know, that the stories tell us that Aesop was tossed
              off a cliff for the telling of his fables. "Mere wisdom teacher"
              makes it sound as if this is a generically safe activity that would
              never rise to the level of making for real trouble. About that
              alone, I disagree. But more importantly this view leaves out the
              very connection of the wisdom speech and "the reconciliation
              program." Need I remind you of the danger of actual reconciliation
              movements in this world? Seriously... just run the list in the last
              century of those who came to espouse serious reconciliation work and
              so consider this list of names: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.,
              Malcolm X, Anwar Sadat, Yitzak Rabin, Nelson Mandella (the only one
              only to have to spend years in jail). In the face of authoritarian
              regimes or very discordant times in particular places, those who
              espouse reconciliation are hardly doing safe work. And if you go
              down this list, one thing that is notable is that such persons often
              arouse great enmity by doing reconciliation work within "their own
              people." Just taking Malcolm X, as an example, he had a life
              changing experience by going to Mecca and left fiery rhetoric behind
              and was killed by some loyal to those who considered him a champion.

              And to your closing point. I would simply invite you to do a careful
              study of what organized activity Jesus was asking his followers to do
              and a careful outlaying of the different stages of the development
              therein that we can isolate. This isn't "a circular" invitation, but
              an invitation to define an original core and differentiate as best
              you can the stages of development you can find. And even if you
              conclude that the original core is best described as a millennialist
              program, I'll still invite you to focus on that wisdom language
              **as** wisdom language and consider the place/ role/ function/
              meaning of that language in relationship to the program.

              Gordon Raynal
              Inman, SC
              >
              > Ron Price
              >
              > Derbyshire, UK
              >
              > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.