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

Re: [XTalk] "Good News"

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Crosstalk In Response To: Gordon Raynal On: Synoptic Dates From: Bruce GORDON: . . . my best estimate is that Matthew is from circa 90 to 100 C.E. and Luke
    Message 1 of 25 , May 11, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Crosstalk
      In Response To: Gordon Raynal
      On: Synoptic Dates
      From: Bruce

      GORDON: . . . my best estimate is that Matthew is from circa 90 to 100 C.E.
      and Luke is from circa 120 C.E. with Acts following after that.

      BRUCE: Then given your previous dating for Mark, and taking midpoints to
      represent spans, we have, in terms of distance from Jesus (c30):

      82 Mark (2 human generations)
      95 Matthew (2.5 human generations)
      120 Luke (3.5 human generations
      ?? Acts (?4 human generations?)

      and I am still surprised that Mark plays no role in your specification of
      the actual teaching of Jesus. You seem to find that the good information
      about Jesus was preserved for more than two human generations after Jesus,
      and was extensively reflected in Matthew and Luke, but that this information
      somehow bypassed Mark. To whom Matthew and Luke are nevertheless obviously,
      and intimately, indebted.

      Given your conclusion that the real tradition survived intact for so long,
      unto the great grandsons of the men of Jesus's generation, how do you
      suppose Mark missed out on it?

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Gordon Raynal
      ... Hi Bruce, I m not sure why you assume I think Mark missed out. In this discussion about the movement, it s purpose, messaging, ethos and praxis, I sent a
      Message 2 of 25 , May 12, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On May 11, 2009, at 10:45 PM, E Bruce Brooks wrote:

        > To: Crosstalk
        > In Response To: Gordon Raynal
        > On: Synoptic Dates
        > From: Bruce
        >
        > GORDON: . . . my best estimate is that Matthew is from circa 90 to
        > 100 C.E.
        > and Luke is from circa 120 C.E. with Acts following after that.
        >
        > BRUCE: Then given your previous dating for Mark, and taking
        > midpoints to
        > represent spans, we have, in terms of distance from Jesus (c30):
        >
        > 82 Mark (2 human generations)
        > 95 Matthew (2.5 human generations)
        > 120 Luke (3.5 human generations
        > ?? Acts (?4 human generations?)
        >
        > and I am still surprised that Mark plays no role in your
        > specification of
        > the actual teaching of Jesus. You seem to find that the good
        > information
        > about Jesus was preserved for more than two human generations after
        > Jesus,
        > and was extensively reflected in Matthew and Luke, but that this
        > information
        > somehow bypassed Mark. To whom Matthew and Luke are nevertheless
        > obviously,
        > and intimately, indebted.
        >
        > Given your conclusion that the real tradition survived intact for
        > so long,
        > unto the great grandsons of the men of Jesus's generation, how do you
        > suppose Mark missed out on it?

        Hi Bruce,
        I'm not sure why you assume I think Mark missed out. In this
        discussion about the movement, it's purpose, messaging, ethos and
        praxis, I sent a short list of that shows the core continuity of that
        messaging/ ethos. I'll direct you to "The Five Gospels" pp. 145-147
        for a succinct summary of the place of the "love your enemies"
        saying. Of course, that saying is not the only selection that
        coheres with the central gist of the core messaging, it is simply a
        very tart saying that pointedly opens up what this, initially loose-
        y, goose-y reconciliation movement was about. Both Matthew and Luke
        utilized both Q and Mark, plus the TANAK and their own imaginations
        and whatever other unknown sources to tell the story.

        I am wondering how you think this particular saying is different from
        Mark's story about "the greatest commandments" in Mark 12:28-34?

        A last point. Bob and I are presenting differing understandings of
        the core messaging of the earliest followers of Jesus. The list of
        questions I submitted and that he liked are a way to work through
        thinking about "the original/ originating messaging" and its
        development between Jesus time and the what we find in Acts. He
        favors understanding this core messaging as being post-Easter words
        ***about Jesus***. I favor understanding this messaging as being pre-
        Easter and ***about "the Kingdom of God***." This list of sayings
        and writings shows the continuity that was maintained. I have not
        yet addressed the whole issue of diversity. I think we find a lot of
        it and I'm not at all surprised about that in a reconciliation
        movement! Strict ideological movements seek to gather same/ similar
        voices to tow the party line. Today Rush Limbaugh is doing a fine
        job of upholding such an approach. Dick Cheney just praised him over
        Colin Powell this very weekend. The modus operandi of a
        reconciliation movement seeks to bring diversity of views/ opinions/
        beliefs together. The literature we have from the first 100 or so
        years after Jesus shows that this was indeed a diverse gathering.
        But then there was an initial start-up (Mark cites this, too... the
        home mission program by sent pairs) and there were originating words
        that pointed to the particular gist of the effort. More broadly than
        just that one saying (that is found in Q1 and it's later redactions
        and included in Matthew and Luke by their copying it from Q), we
        find a whole series of "Kingdom of God" parables. Mark has a
        concentration of those in chapter 4 and there spells out Jesus' use
        of parables and how he (Mark) understood them. In this brief
        listing, however, I turned to the close of the Galilean ministry, as
        Mark lays out the story, to the very final words he has on Jesus'
        lips in the HQ ***house*** in Capernaum (I am simply highlighting
        precisely the place/ setting, for again this is a house connecting
        mission and these words are the very last words Mark wants us to
        focus on before Jesus heads south). What words are those? They are
        an interpretation of the "have salt" aphorism (a wisdom saying) and
        that are precisely about finding and sharing peace. Mark closes the
        whole house to house mission in a house with words about sharing
        peace. There's your core continuity in Mark! Bruce, I am going to
        address the diversity, but this note was about the different ways the
        continuity was maintained through words.

        Gordon Raynal
        Inman, SC
        >
        > Bruce
        >
        > E Bruce Brooks
        > Warring States Project
        > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > 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
        >
        >
        >
      • John E Staton
        Gordon, The main trouble I have with your analysis is that what you portray as the original message is so obviously good news I cannot see why anybody felt
        Message 3 of 25 , May 12, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Gordon,
          The main trouble I have with your analysis is that what you portray as
          the "original message" is so obviously "good news" I cannot see why
          anybody felt motivated to crucify Jesus. The other problem is that a
          wandering teacher who goes about upsetting the authorities right, left,
          and centre, looks more like a leader of an ideological movement than of
          a reconciliation movement!

          Best Wishes

          --
          JOHN E STATON (BA Sheffield; DipTheol. Bristol)
          Hull, UK
          www.christianreflection.org.uk

          ----------


          ----------


          No virus found in this outgoing message.
          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.26/2110 - Release Date: 05/12/09 06:22:00


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Crosstalk Cc: GPG; WSW In Response To: Gordon Raynal On: The Good News From: Bruce I had noted that all Gordon s citations of key documents in his
          Message 4 of 25 , May 13, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Crosstalk
            Cc: GPG; WSW
            In Response To: Gordon Raynal
            On: The "Good News"
            From: Bruce

            I had noted that all Gordon's citations of key documents in his version of
            the Good News Proclamation were from Second Tier materials (Matthew/Luke),
            and that none of them were from Mark, which, as it turns out, he agrees is
            considerably older than the oldest of these. I had doubted the
            methodological soundness of recovering Jesus's message from the later
            sources, and ignoring the earlier sources. In response:

            GORDON: I'm not sure why you assume I think Mark missed out. In this
            discussion about the movement, it's purpose, messaging, ethos and praxis, I
            sent a short list of that shows the core continuity of that
            messaging/ ethos. I'll direct you to "The Five Gospels" pp. 145-147 for a
            succinct summary of the place of the "love your enemies" saying.

            BRUCE: I dug it out. It is the stretch of The Five Gospels which comments on
            Mt 5:43, which (with Lk 6:27-28 and 6:32-35) is where "love your enemies"
            first comes up textually. The Mt/Lk parallels are set out on p146, and this
            table takes up all of p146. I never doubted that Mt and Lk are parallel in
            this as in many other places. As for Mk, or for any other evidence that this
            "love your enemies" saying is earlier than Mt/Lk themselves, the only
            statement on the cited pages is this one on p147:

            "The admonition "love your enemies" is somewhere close to the heart of the
            teachings of Jesus to the extent that we can recover them from the
            tradition. The Jesus Seminar ranked the admonition to love enemies the third
            highest among sayings that almost certainly originated with Jesus (the other
            two included the complex about turning the other cheek, Mt 5:39-42, and the
            cluster of beatitudes, Luke 6:20-22). . . . A close comparison of Mt 5:43-48
            with Lk 6:27-36 demonstrates that the two evangelists created independent
            complexes out of the love saying, combined, perhaps, with other related
            expressions that may go back to Jesus."

            This vaguely hopeful assertion ("perhaps," "may go back"), accompanied by
            precisely zero evidence from any agreed early source, amounts to nothing
            more than the fact that the pious and gently nurtured people in the Jesus
            Seminar regarded the Sermon on the Mount as the core Jesus teaching. Well, I
            have been to Sunday School too, and I know exactly where they are coming
            from. But that early inculcated opinion, however widely held, and however
            fondly remembered from days of childhood, is not adult evidence for the
            originality of the "love your enemies" saying, or for the originality of any
            other component of the Nice Jesus construct in which Mt/Lk specialize, but
            about which the admittedly earlier account in Mark is entirely unaware.

            And not only unaware. The Markan Jesus is consistently adversative. He
            opposes and offends the Pharisees. He warns his followers not to be taken in
            by the blandishments of the Quisling Party ("Herodians"). He and his family
            are estranged; they try to have him committed to whatever in those times
            passed for an asylum. He physically assaults the commercial enterprises in
            the Temple. And what he gets for all this is opposition in return, from his
            family, the Pharisees, the Herodians, and finally from the Romans, who
            execute him.

            Did Jesus love the Romans? Did he love the moneychangers in the Temple? Did
            he love the pettifogging Pharisees? Not a bit of it. He opposed them all,
            and at what seemed to him the right moment, he attacked them all, with every
            personal and organizational resource at his disposal. Turns out he
            miscalculated, whence the Crucifixion, but that does not alter in the least
            the nature of what, according to Mark, he was trying to do.

            Now, given that this is our earliest source for Jesus, and best defines the
            position of the Jesus movement at the moment of the Crucifixion, and then
            given basic historical probability, what are the members of the Jesus
            movement likely to do, in the weeks after the Crucifixion? Probably a lot of
            things, at different places up and down Israel, but one obvious alternative
            is to remake their peace with their neighbors and overlords, including the
            local police barracks. Such a tactic would lead very easily to the
            Reconciliation Message. And that in turn, in the circles which liked that
            alternative in the first place, leads easily enough to a preaching of that
            Reconciliation Message, not simply as current policy, but as though it had
            been commanded by the movement founder. This rhetorical subterfuge is
            necessary if the present policy of reconciliation is to be upheld, AND if,
            at the same time, a perceived connection with the founder is to be
            maintained. Cultures evolve constantly, in antiquity and also at the present
            moment, in exactly this way: reshaping, repositioning, recombining, and
            renewing their previous authoritative documents, whether by interpolation
            or, in the case of Mt and Lk, by composition de novo.

            Exactly so did the followers of Confucius, having been defeated in one
            policy initiative (we have a book coming out on this), adopt new doctrines,
            reconstrue their past doctrines, and reposition themselves for a position of
            toleration under current governments, and eventually, after still further
            adaptations and evolutions, for a position of intellectual dominance under
            governments which were to arise only a century or so later.

            So much, then, might have been predicted simply from general considerations;
            a reconciliation policy is one thing that is likely to have happened in the
            period immediately after the Crucifixion.

            What is interesting, and what we could not have expected from general
            considerations, is that this Reconciliation Message became dominant in at
            least one strand of the post-Crucifixion Jesus movement, and, second, that
            this particular strand happened to be well documented textually. For lo and
            behold, if we turn to Matthew and Luke, the Second Tier evidential base, we
            find them expounding, and attributing to Jesus, precisely this
            Reconciliation Message. Which makes no sense as the message of Jesus,
            expounded in the lifetime of Jesus, but makes all possible sense as
            retrospectively attributed to Jesus, by a community (or several) which
            collectively wanted to establish a modus vivendi with their neighbors.

            There is nothing wrong with recovering this particular response to the
            Crucifixion in all possible detail and precision. As it seems to me Gordon
            is doing. That story too is part of history, and as such, it is a perfectly
            valid object of historical investigation. Let me not seem to say otherwise.
            The only thing that might arouse an objection (and I have been concerned to
            raise just that objection) is the unwarranted step of attributing this
            Reconciliation Message to the Historical Jesus. Just as the entire body of
            Second Tier evidence supports and indeed defines that Message, so the entire
            body of First Tier evidence is against it, and tells a quite different, and
            incompatible, story.

            It is here that John Staton's recent question seems to me entirely a propos.
            If the Historical Jesus had lived as the Reconciliation passages in Mt/Lk
            represent him as doing, which is, meekly and inoffensively at all times, and
            beyond this, as preaching meekness and inoffensiveness to others as cardinal
            doctrines of right behavior, how do you explain the Crucifixion?

            I think the answer is: You can't. But if you take the Markan Jesus in its
            turn, as seriously as one investigating Reconciliation Doctrine must take Mt
            and Lk, then the answer to the Crucifixion Question becomes perfectly
            obvious. In fact, it might be said that one motive for Mark in the first
            place was to answer precisely that question.

            As the years passed, or so it appears if we step back and take in all the
            evidence at once, the Crucifixion Question gradually faded from view (it
            became, as we say, "history"), and the question "What shall we do to inherit
            eternal life" came to occupy the whole horizon of interest among the Jesus
            communities. Minor elements, or even later supplied elements, of the Jesus
            story came to the fore, and the original salient features, though not erased
            from the Christian writings, came to be, in effect, doctrinally inert and
            inoperative. The shift from the national future of Israel to the personal
            future of individual believers is another explicit characteristic of the
            Second Tier Gospels. Accompanying a widening circle of proselytizing, with
            its increasing number of interested Greeks, none of whom cared a fig for the
            national status of Israel, past present, or prospective.

            It all makes sense. At least it does if one keeps the various developments
            separate from each other, and lets each speak, in their turn, as clearly as
            the existing evidence allows them to do.

            Recommended herewith. At both ends of the Eurasian continent.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • Bob Schacht
            ... Well, no, but I can see how you got that impression. You asked what the originating proclamation was. I listed Peter s witness: * Repentance, *
            Message 5 of 25 , May 13, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              At 02:49 AM 5/12/2009, Gordon Raynal wrote:
              >...Bob and I are presenting differing understandings of
              >the core messaging of the earliest followers of Jesus. The list of
              >questions I submitted and that he liked are a way to work through
              >thinking about "the original/ originating messaging" and its
              >development between Jesus time and the what we find in Acts. He
              >favors understanding this core messaging as being post-Easter words
              >***about Jesus***.

              Well, no, but I can see how you got that impression. You asked what the
              "originating proclamation" was. I listed Peter's witness:
              * Repentance,
              * Baptism in the Holy Spirit
              * the Promise of the HS
              That list is remarkably NOT about Jesus. I think he also drew attention to
              the resurrection as a standard part of his message. But I think you have
              mis-characterized what I "favor."

              But let's go on to your third question:

              >1. What was the originating proclamation (messaging) of the
              >community? What was it about?
              >2. What social formation did the proclamation entail? What were the
              >central practices?
              >3. Who were the participants?

              Who were the participants? I addressed this in my responses regarding
              social formation.
              Gordon, what about the participants have I not addressed in my comments on
              social formation?

              Cheers,
              Bob Schacht



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Gordon Raynal
              Hi John, ... I actually find that fascinating. Let me just run a brief modern list of those who have forwarded reconciliation work in their own circumstances
              Message 6 of 25 , May 13, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi John,
                On May 13, 2009, at 2:44 AM, John E Staton wrote:

                > Gordon,
                > The main trouble I have with your analysis is that what you portray as
                > the "original message" is so obviously "good news" I cannot see why
                > anybody felt motivated to crucify Jesus. The other problem is that a
                > wandering teacher who goes about upsetting the authorities right,
                > left,
                > and centre, looks more like a leader of an ideological movement
                > than of
                > a reconciliation movement!

                I actually find that fascinating. Let me just run a brief modern
                list of those who have forwarded reconciliation work in their own
                circumstances and their fates. Understand that I am not claiming
                that all the actions of the folks on this list are simply the same,
                but that these folks eventually saw reconciliation work as essential
                and core. I'll start with one who wasn't killed, but jailed:

                Nelson Mandela... 27 years in jail... went on to become President of
                South Africa and much beloved icon of reconciliation.

                Now to those who got killed for forwarding reconciliation:

                India: Ghandi... pretty much became the iconic 20th century
                reconciliation figure. He rather liked "the Sermon on the Mount!"
                Other result, your great nation ended up giving up India!
                Israel: Rabin... and the mess endures.
                Egypt: Sadat... the peace he made with Israel still holds with Egypt,
                although the mess endures...
                USA: Malcolm X... this once reviled fellow made it on a U.S.A.
                postage stamp and is now cited favorably in "Black History Month"
                USA: M.L. King, Jr. the USA model reconciler... and now Obama is
                President and they are raising funds to build a monument in Washington.

                Forwarding reconciliation in divisive times and in unstable political
                circumstances is highly dangerous, n'est pas?

                In terms of a wandering teacher, I honestly don't know how much Jesus
                traveled. What I do see when I start with the proclamation of the
                Kingdom of God messaging is an interest in forming a house network
                that actually forms a sustained web of connections that can actually
                endure in the aforementioned divisive times and unstable
                circumstances. The mission action plan was workable! It could have
                failed, but then I think the Thomas 48 pericope nicely talks about
                the power that is involved in such a movement. The Mark 9:50 words
                speak of this movement in terms of instilling courage. Yes,
                reconciliation work tends to lift up the most ideal language and we
                will find such referenced, but this mission program was imminently
                practical and very much aimed at making a real difference in those
                tortured times. I want to write more about this in my reply to Bob
                today about the participants question, but here I'll just note the
                snippet that we find Paul talking about baptizing households (I Cor.
                16). And so again, in this model we have a place for moms and dads,
                grannies, the feeble and kids! Such folks as these... in their
                homes... at their lives... are so often simply overlooked, if not
                actually forgotten. I think the program worked and that most of the
                people who made it work are simply nameless for us.

                Finally, I am entirely glad that you said: "the original message is
                so obviously good news." It is. But then think about heading to
                Gaza today and the work of getting together Israeli Jews of various
                parties, Israeli Muslims, Israeli Christians of various stripes and
                Palestinian Fatah and Hamas folks and forming a reconciliation
                network that points to a higher loyalty than any those groups now
                live out of. Making reconciliation workable is some feat, eh?
                Exactly how long did it take for N. Ireland to achieve that? In my
                book, Jesus and friends were some very brave gals and dudes.

                >
                > Best Wishes

                and to you,

                Gordon Raynal
                Inman, SC
                >
              • Gordon Raynal
                Hi Bruce, ... Just a few brief responses. ... You don t accept Q. The Jesus Seminar folks, the International Q project folks and I do. In my vocabulary Mark
                Message 7 of 25 , May 13, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Bruce,
                  On May 13, 2009, at 4:08 AM, E Bruce Brooks wrote:

                  >

                  Just a few brief responses.

                  > BRUCE: I dug it out. It is the stretch of The Five Gospels which
                  > comments on
                  > Mt 5:43, which (with Lk 6:27-28 and 6:32-35) is where "love your
                  > enemies"
                  > first comes up textually. The Mt/Lk parallels are set out on p146,
                  > and this
                  > table takes up all of p146. I never doubted that Mt and Lk are
                  > parallel in
                  > this as in many other places. As for Mk, or for any other evidence
                  > that this
                  > "love your enemies" saying is earlier than Mt/Lk themselves, the only
                  > statement on the cited pages is this one on p147:

                  You don't accept Q. The Jesus Seminar folks, the International Q
                  project folks and I do. In my vocabulary Mark is 2nd tier writing,
                  not first tier. In terms of the earliest documents I would list the
                  following:

                  Q1 (see Kloppennborg or Mack)
                  Thomas 1... I think Thomas, like Q contains layers and that the
                  earliest layer goes back before the R.J. War
                  the authentic Pauline corpus which I think includes Galatians, the
                  Corinthians correspondence, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Most
                  include I Thess., but I think this is deutero-Pauline and from the 90's.
                  an earlier version of the Didache
                  some of the materials we find in Ep. James. (I think like Paul's
                  extant letters show many a later emendation, so also with the Ep. of
                  James)

                  Let me simply say that every document we have are scholarly
                  reconstructed documents. We have not a single original monograph of
                  any of these or any of the later letters or gospels, either.

                  In addition to "whole written" documents, I also think there were
                  oral forms and other simple listings that the later narrative Gospel
                  writers had access to. Examples are lists of parables that Mark
                  utilized in Mark 4, the commemoration meal liturgical formula (we
                  find one in Paul's writings, yet another in the Didache), various
                  forms of what came to be "the Lord's Prayer" (which may go back to
                  Jesus, but it is actually a collection of individual aphorisms. See
                  Hal Taussig's book on it), such free standing stories as "cast the
                  first stone" (that we find oddly placed in John 8), then such as
                  Paul's citation of what he received to talk about Jesus' death,
                  burial and resurrection in I Cor. 15: "died according to
                  Scriptures...."). I think the motto/ credo like expressions we find
                  variously written in the Gospels, Paul's letter, James' letter and
                  the Didache also pre-date the writings.

                  I think these are the first tier materials we have access to.
                  >

                  >
                  > And not only unaware. The Markan Jesus is consistently adversative.

                  And do you think this is historical portraiture? I don't. I think
                  it reflects "Mark's" (whoever he or she was) parabolic portraiture
                  writing after the R-J war. Plus Mark's Jesus is not consistently
                  adversative. He's down right gentle with the ill, the infirmed,
                  children, and even other healers who aren't a part of the movement
                  (see Mark 9). And again, the whole Galilean mission ends on peace
                  finding words. But Mark casts his character Jesus very much in the
                  mold of the ancient prophets of Israel, most especially Elijah and
                  Elisha. Why this focus of characterization? Well several reasons,
                  but the stark fact was that the revolutionary folks won the day in
                  Palestine with the result that the Romans came in with crushing
                  force. Mark employs classical and apocalyptic prophetic
                  characterizations and motifs to make it entirely clear that the call
                  for reconciliation went unheeded by the majority. Not to be crass,
                  but there is a big, "he told you so," message in Mark.
                  >
                  >
                  > There is nothing wrong with recovering this particular response to the
                  > Crucifixion in all possible detail and precision. As it seems to me
                  > Gordon
                  > is doing. That story too is part of history, and as such, it is a
                  > perfectly
                  > valid object of historical investigation. Let me not seem to say
                  > otherwise.
                  > The only thing that might arouse an objection (and I have been
                  > concerned to
                  > raise just that objection) is the unwarranted step of attributing this
                  > Reconciliation Message to the Historical Jesus. Just as the entire
                  > body of
                  > Second Tier evidence supports and indeed defines that Message, so
                  > the entire
                  > body of First Tier evidence is against it, and tells a quite
                  > different, and
                  > incompatible, story.

                  Here I want to simply say one thing. I really do not start with
                  Jesus alone. I start with the concept of social movement and
                  messaging. The one major self description by Jesus that I think goes
                  back to him is the following. It comes in the pericope where both
                  John the Baptizer and Jesus are being talked about: "John the
                  Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say,
                  'He has a demon." This "son of Adam" has come eating and drinking,
                  and you say, "Look a glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors
                  and sinners!' Nevertheless, wisdom is vindicated by all her children."


                  >
                  > It is here that John Staton's recent question seems to me entirely
                  > a propos.
                  > If the Historical Jesus had lived as the Reconciliation passages in
                  > Mt/Lk
                  > represent him as doing, which is, meekly and inoffensively at all
                  > times, and
                  > beyond this, as preaching meekness and inoffensiveness to others as
                  > cardinal
                  > doctrines of right behavior, how do you explain the Crucifixion?

                  See my note to John. It's really easy to get killed for this kind of
                  work! And so to you, I find it just plain odd that you think
                  otherwise. Seriously, ponder going to Gaza today and think about
                  standing up for reconciliation. When the Pope goes (however
                  effective or on board you think any particular pope is) he goes in a
                  bullet proof Pope Mobile and surrounded by troops. Jesus and friends
                  didn't exactly have this luxury. And per the Mission program
                  equipping of "the sent ones" he wasn't for accepting it!
                  >
                  > I think the answer is: You can't.

                  No, the answer is I can explain this very easily. Highly
                  ideologically partisan groups and individuals have famously jailed
                  and/ or tortured and/or killed many "an agent of reconciliation." I
                  cited some "famous" ones. How many nameless folks have there been
                  who seek to make for reconciliation and have simply been summarily
                  eliminated???

                  Gordon Raynal
                  Inman, SC
                  >
                • Gordon Raynal
                  Hi Bob, ... Thanks for the correction. I stand corrected, then. When you say, I think he also drew attention to the resurrection as a standard part of the
                  Message 8 of 25 , May 13, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Bob,

                    On May 13, 2009, at 5:47 AM, Bob Schacht wrote:

                    > At 02:49 AM 5/12/2009, Gordon Raynal wrote:
                    >> ...Bob and I are presenting differing understandings of
                    >> the core messaging of the earliest followers of Jesus. The list of
                    >> questions I submitted and that he liked are a way to work through
                    >> thinking about "the original/ originating messaging" and its
                    >> development between Jesus time and the what we find in Acts. He
                    >> favors understanding this core messaging as being post-Easter words
                    >> ***about Jesus***.
                    >
                    > Well, no, but I can see how you got that impression. You asked what
                    > the
                    > "originating proclamation" was. I listed Peter's witness:
                    > * Repentance,
                    > * Baptism in the Holy Spirit
                    > * the Promise of the HS
                    > That list is remarkably NOT about Jesus. I think he also drew
                    > attention to
                    > the resurrection as a standard part of his message. But I think you
                    > have
                    > mis-characterized what I "favor."

                    Thanks for the correction. I stand corrected, then.
                    When you say, "I think he also drew attention to the resurrection as
                    a standard part of the message," when?, what do you mean by this?
                    point me to your texts?

                    >
                    > But let's go on to your third question:
                    >
                    >> 1. What was the originating proclamation (messaging) of the
                    >> community? What was it about?
                    >> 2. What social formation did the proclamation entail? What were the
                    >> central practices?
                    >> 3. Who were the participants?
                    >
                    > Who were the participants? I addressed this in my responses regarding
                    > social formation.
                    > Gordon, what about the participants have I not addressed in my
                    > comments on
                    > social formation?

                    You have addressed this in terms of core followers/ proclaimers, who
                    per Acts, dwelt together in Jerusalem and then worked out from
                    there. Is this correct? I am still interested in why you think Luke
                    has that right and/or why you think you can simply conflate Matthew's
                    ending with Luke's?

                    But now to go on and simply bring to the fore the specific answer, I
                    want to focus on "the homey's" as the central participants in this
                    reconciliation movement. I am emphasizing them because a.) this is
                    what the whole movement was about... forming a network of houses, and
                    b.) to actually contrast how such as Dom Crossan and the Jesus
                    Seminar more broadly emphasized the apostoloi. In my view they
                    became far too charmed with the Cynics lifestyle and overly focused
                    their interpretations about Jesus, "the Sent One's," and their
                    interpretations about Jesus' aphorisms that are aimed at those folks
                    on "a wandering lifestyle." I do think such as the sayings of
                    Diogenes of Sinope and the other aphoristic speech of the Cynics is
                    important. I also think we do need to consider these peripatetic
                    philosophers in relationship to "the goers." (It is a helpful to
                    think about this in relationship to the suggested dress and equipment
                    of "the goers.") But I simply want to note that this was not about
                    taking up a counter-cultural lifestyle, nor your notion of "groovy
                    communes", but rather precisely about the making of a reconciliation
                    network. The going and the equipment and dress do contain part of
                    the messaging, but this, in my view, is entirely in service of "the
                    getting somewhere and making for something." That somewhere is to
                    the homes... and then others and then others....
                    Also overlooked is that little notation in Mark 2:1, "When he
                    returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was
                    (emphasis) ***at home.*** Quite possibly and I would suggest
                    probably, Jesus lived in Capernaum in his own house or with friends
                    before the mission was set afoot and still while it was going on.
                    This is a guess (that famed house in Capernaum is always called,
                    "Peter's house," but then maybe it was Jesus'???) , but I favor it
                    because we find Jesus returning there on last time in Mark's
                    narrative in ch. 9 and as I've cited in several notes, "in the house"
                    we find Mark's Jesus conclude the Galilean and places east and north
                    mission time with the summary words about peace making. To be sure,
                    Jesus also traveled and was a part of making this networking come
                    alive. And let's not be literalistic about "the two's." Sometimes
                    Jesus and a group probably did travel. Sometimes Jesus may have gone
                    alone. Others sometimes probably went as one's, two's or three's,
                    etc. I just don't know how long and how much Jesus actually
                    travelled. What I do understand from this network making work is
                    that more and more "pairs" took this up and the horizons kept getting
                    broader and broader with more and more home's accepting. And back to
                    the whole point... the network of homes grew. (Surely, not all the
                    homey's joined the network!)

                    So... key participants? The receiving home dwellers who accepted
                    "the Peace," provided lodging, fed "sent ones," listened to the
                    wisdom words, talked up "the Kingdom" in terms of the received
                    tradition, accepted "the healing," and became a part of the network.
                    Most are nameless to us, but then we do find some named home folk in
                    the available materials. Here, let me go through just Mark for some
                    of the noted ones:

                    Mark 1:29 Simon Peter's house. Nameless mother-in-law healed and
                    cooked and fed... in Capernaum
                    Mark 2:1 Jesus' home? in Capernaum
                    Mark 2:15 Levi's home in Capernaum
                    (note Mark 3:19... [Jesus] he went home... Capernaum)
                    Mark 5:19 Jesus sends the healed Gerasene Demoniac, who had been
                    living among the tombs, home... so Gerasa?
                    Mark 5:21ff Jesus heals in the home of Jairus
                    (note Mark 6 does have Jesus' returning to his childhood hometown and
                    despite the ill reception there is notation in 6:5 that there were
                    some there who were healed)
                    Mark 6:7ff... the notation of the 2 by 2 mission. ?? how many places
                    did these pairs find accepting homes?
                    Mark 6:45 ff mentions Bethsaida
                    Mark 6:53ff. mentions Gennesaret
                    Mark 7:24 mentions the region of Tyre
                    Mark 7:31 mentions the region of the Decapolis
                    Mark 8:10 mentions of the District of Dalmanutha
                    Mark 8:22 again mentions Bethsaida
                    Mark 8:27 mentions the villages of Caesrea Philippi
                    Mark 9:28 mentions a boy healed at his home
                    and Mark 9:33ff takes him back to his? house. After that it is on to
                    Jerusalem.

                    Now, I know that Mark frames this as Jesus forming a group of 12 who
                    followed after him. That's Mark's Jesus and Mark's plotting.
                    Matthew and Luke will change some of the order, but will follow
                    Mark's plotting. John will give us a longer and very different
                    itinerary. I do not think this is historical, nor am I claiming that
                    Mark's stories are remembrances. His Christ is a wandering, new
                    symbolic Israel leading (the 12), exorcist/ preacher/ teacher. In
                    the 80's (in my view) that's how he makes for a great story that
                    plays off of the plot of ancient Israel's story and plays off of the
                    stories of wandering prophets, like Elijah and Elisha. What I'm
                    interested in this listing is the suggested expansion of the network.
                    and the naming of folks like Peter's mother-in-law, Levi, Jairus and
                    his child. Here are but a few of the many nameless, named. And the
                    broader listing of the places points to the extent of the network
                    back in the 20's. It is Capernaum, Galilee centered (not Jerusalem!)
                    and it expands all the way to the region of Tyre and Sidon, up to
                    Caesarea Philippi and over into the Decapolis. One thing I'd suggest
                    about the viability of this mission program is that it initially made
                    for a healthy network of homes **away** from the troubled south...
                    away from Antipas' power places in Sepphoris and his later capitol by
                    the lake, and away from the large concentration of Roman forces in
                    Jerusalem or Caesrea by the coast. Smart planning! That later we
                    find these places cave into "the growing zealotry" that so
                    disastrously led to the R-J War, and so the later stern rebukes of
                    these places should come as no surprise. And that Luke would re-
                    center the whole movement in Jerusalem should come as no surprise.
                    (He, after all in Luke-Acts is interested in getting "the Way" far
                    away from Palestine and precisely to it's new capitol, Rome!). But,
                    "in the beginning," so to speak... it was a network centered in
                    Capernaum and spread outward from there. And the core participants
                    were those homebodies... mom's, dad's, kids, grannies, etc. who
                    listened, fed, sheltered, talked and joined the network.

                    Gordon Raynal
                    Inman, SC

                    Cheers to you as well!



                    >
                    > Cheers,
                    > Bob Schacht
                    >
                    >
                  • Bob Schacht
                    ... [snip] ... Sure. * Acts 2:23-24,31-32 * Acts 3:15 * Acts 4:10 * Acts 4:33 * Acts 5:30 * Acts 10:39-41 And as further testimony to the centrality of the
                    Message 9 of 25 , May 14, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 05:22 AM 5/13/2009, Gordon Raynal wrote:
                      >Hi Bob,
                      >

                      [snip]

                      >When you say, "I think he also drew attention to the resurrection as
                      >a standard part of the message," when?, what do you mean by this?
                      >point me to your texts?

                      Sure.
                      * Acts 2:23-24,31-32
                      * Acts 3:15
                      * Acts 4:10
                      * Acts 4:33
                      * Acts 5:30
                      * Acts 10:39-41
                      And as further testimony to the centrality of the resurrection in the
                      originating proclamation, even Paul makes it the centerpiece of his
                      proclamation.


                      > >
                      > > But let's go on to your third question:
                      > >
                      > >> 1. What was the originating proclamation (messaging) of the
                      > >> community? What was it about?
                      > >> 2. What social formation did the proclamation entail? What were the
                      > >> central practices?
                      > >> 3. Who were the participants?
                      > >
                      > > Who were the participants? I addressed this in my responses regarding
                      > > social formation.
                      > > Gordon, what about the participants have I not addressed in my
                      > > comments on
                      > > social formation?
                      >
                      >You have addressed this in terms of core followers/ proclaimers, who
                      >per Acts, dwelt together in Jerusalem and then worked out from
                      >there. Is this correct?

                      Well, Luke's model is expanding ripples, starting from Jerusalem. I think
                      it was a bit more zig-zaggy, starting in Jerusalem, but then bouncing
                      around Judea, Samaria and Galilee, and then Damascus and Antioch. But I
                      suppose that's covered by "working out from there."

                      But remember that we began with the "originating proclamation." There were
                      also households scattered about, in Galilee, and in Judea, where Jesus had
                      friends who had hosted them during their travels. I look at these not in
                      terms of "originating proclamation," but in terms of rank and file supporters.


                      > I am still interested in why you think Luke has that right and/or why
                      > you think you can simply conflate Matthew's
                      >ending with Luke's?

                      Luke *and John.* I think Luke exaggerates the length and centrality of
                      Jerusalem in order to make it his launching pad for the expanding ripples/
                      concentric circles. I suspect that about half the disciples went back to
                      Galilee fairly soon (after a week? two weeks?). Peter & John probably went
                      back and forth a bunch, trying to figure out what their place was. I
                      suspect that they probably recruited James (The "Lord's brother") during
                      one of those journeys, and James relocated to Jerusalem relatively
                      permanently. I'm leaning on John somewhat for that.


                      >But now to go on and simply bring to the fore the specific answer, I
                      >want to focus on "the homey's" as the central participants in this
                      >reconciliation movement. I am emphasizing them because a.) this is
                      >what the whole movement was about... forming a network of houses, and

                      This is obviously *your* view. Where are the "apostles" in your view? They
                      are the ones who have been "sent".
                      If the focus was on the "homeys," how did the followers of Jesus ever get
                      out of Galilee? How did the "network" become a "network"? Doesn't it
                      require some folks to get up off their butts and go somewhere?

                      I am thinking perhaps you want a model like that of Cornelius:
                      Acts 10:33 "Therefore I sent for you immediately, and you have been kind
                      enough to come. So now all of us are here in the presence of God to listen
                      to all that the Lord has commanded you to say."

                      So maybe they just generated such positive vibes that they were *invited*
                      to go hither and yon, like Peter went to Cornelius, thereby adding another
                      house to the network? But if so, how did they become well-known enough for
                      peole to want to invite them? In the case of Cornelius, it was because he
                      had heard of things Peter was *doing*: He was running around talking and
                      healing people. Not that Peter had great dinner parties.

                      Or maybe you are thinking of Paul's house churches. But those didn't become
                      house churches until Paul started preaching at them. So I don't get it.

                      >b.) to actually contrast how such as Dom Crossan and the Jesus
                      >Seminar more broadly emphasized the apostoloi. In my view they
                      >became far too charmed with the Cynics lifestyle and overly focused
                      >their interpretations about Jesus, "the Sent One's," and their
                      >interpretations about Jesus' aphorisms that are aimed at those folks
                      >on "a wandering lifestyle." I do think such as the sayings of
                      >Diogenes of Sinope and the other aphoristic speech of the Cynics is
                      >important. I also think we do need to consider these peripatetic
                      >philosophers in relationship to "the goers." (It is a helpful to
                      >think about this in relationship to the suggested dress and equipment
                      >of "the goers.")

                      No, I'm not going there. Crossan and Burton Mack's "Cynics" model doesn't
                      work for me.
                      But I'm not sure that I can articulate why very well.

                      I think maybe its the message. The Jesus Seminar methodology selected for
                      pithy aphorisms, and excluded Jewish piety because, well, it was Jewish
                      piety and hence indistinguishable from the Jewish piety of the landscape.

                      I think that what Jesus was trying to do was to point people towards God.
                      And he did that mostly by talking about the Kingdom of God.

                      Peter, impetuous fellow that he was, didn't get the message quite right.
                      Yeah, he got the repentance part OK, and he got the Holy Spirit thing down
                      better than anyone except Jesus himself. But the *why* part zipped right
                      over his head. I think I'm following
                      <http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Figure-Jesus-E-Sanders/dp/0140144994/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242288163&sr=1-2>The
                      Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P.Sanders here. Or trying to.

                      And I don't think that the Cynics were trying to point people towards God.
                      The Jesus Seminar snipped that part out by their methodology.

                      >But I simply want to note that this was not about
                      >taking up a counter-cultural lifestyle, nor your notion of "groovy
                      >communes", but rather precisely about the making of a reconciliation
                      >network. The going and the equipment and dress do contain part of
                      >the messaging, but this, in my view, is entirely in service of "the
                      >getting somewhere and making for something." That somewhere is to
                      >the homes... and then others and then others....

                      IMHO that's a byproduct of what Jesus intended. Yes, reconciliation
                      happens, but it happens as a byproduct of getting right with God. And its
                      very difficult to get that across correctly without over-obsessing on some
                      transcendental God who has nothing to do with Earth. Gotta balance the
                      immanent and the transcendant.

                      > Also overlooked is that little notation in Mark 2:1, "When he
                      >returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was
                      >(emphasis) ***at home.***

                      Well, Jesus doesn't seem to have been much of a homey. He seems more
                      interested in going someplace else than staying at home reconciling people.

                      >Quite possibly and I would suggest
                      >probably, Jesus lived in Capernaum in his own house or with friends
                      >before the mission was set afoot and still while it was going on.

                      So howcum we don't hear much about that?

                      >....And let's not be literalistic about "the two's." Sometimes
                      >Jesus and a group probably did travel. Sometimes Jesus may have gone
                      >alone. Others sometimes probably went as one's, two's or three's,
                      >etc. . . .

                      Well, Philip went as a 'one' before he teamed up temporarily with the
                      Ethiopian eunuch.
                      I would not want to be rigid about the twos, but there are good reasons in
                      human dynamics for pairs.

                      >So... key participants? The receiving home dwellers who accepted
                      >"the Peace," provided lodging, fed "sent ones," listened to the
                      >wisdom words, talked up "the Kingdom" in terms of the received
                      >tradition, accepted "the healing," and became a part of the network.
                      >Most are nameless to us, but then we do find some named home folk in
                      >the available materials.

                      I would point mainly to the Didache. And the Damascus group that received
                      Saul before he became Paul.

                      Well, this is all I've got time for tonight.

                      Aloha,
                      Bob


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Gordon Raynal
                      Good Morning Bob, I must say that this is one of the most enjoyable conversations we ve had on Crosstalk2. I think it is very helpful to see the two
                      Message 10 of 25 , May 14, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Good Morning Bob,

                        I must say that this is one of the most enjoyable conversations we've
                        had on Crosstalk2. I think it is very helpful to see the two
                        contrasting approaches, side by side. At the end we'll see where we
                        are in terms of convergences. Before we move on to the next
                        question, let me respond to these points.
                        On May 14, 2009, at 4:20 AM, Bob Schacht wrote:

                        > At 05:22 AM 5/13/2009, Gordon Raynal wrote:
                        >> Hi Bob,
                        >>
                        >
                        > [snip]
                        >
                        >> When you say, "I think he also drew attention to the resurrection as
                        >> a standard part of the message," when?, what do you mean by this?
                        >> point me to your texts?
                        >
                        > Sure.
                        > * Acts 2:23-24,31-32
                        > * Acts 3:15
                        > * Acts 4:10
                        > * Acts 4:33
                        > * Acts 5:30
                        > * Acts 10:39-41
                        > And as further testimony to the centrality of the resurrection in the
                        > originating proclamation,

                        I begin with a big grin. Yesterday I got Bruce's note, John's note,
                        an off-line note and yours and I responded to them in that order.
                        When I got to your note I read the first quickly and still had "Jesus
                        on the brain:)!," and not Peter. So, yes, of course, this is the
                        core speech that "Luke" gives to Peter. Sorry about that!

                        > even Paul makes it the centerpiece of his
                        > proclamation.

                        Now here, I'll quibble. I think Paul's salutation's present the
                        centerpiece, the various expressions of, "Grace and Peace to you
                        from...." That's how he begins his letters. And just taking I
                        Corinthians, when in chapter one he talks about only preaching the
                        cross, then what God's foolish makes for is "wisdom, and
                        righteousness, sanctification and redemption." (I Cor. 1:30). All
                        the way over in chapter 15, when he does talk about his view of the
                        importance of the resurrection, he finally gets to the point of
                        talking about that in I Cor. 56-58: "The sting of death is sin, and
                        the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God who gives us the
                        victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved, be
                        steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord,
                        because you know that in the Lord your labor is not in vain." And I
                        want to emphasize that "excelling in the work of the Lord." What is
                        it? Well in II Cor. 5 Paul gives his answer: v.18: "All of this is
                        from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given
                        to us the ministry of reconciliation." In my view, this is the
                        centerpiece for Paul. He's all about continuing what Jesus and his
                        friends started before Jesus died.
                        >
                        >>
                        >> You have addressed this in terms of core followers/ proclaimers, who
                        >> per Acts, dwelt together in Jerusalem and then worked out from
                        >> there. Is this correct?
                        >
                        > Well, Luke's model is expanding ripples, starting from Jerusalem. I
                        > think
                        > it was a bit more zig-zaggy, starting in Jerusalem, but then bouncing
                        > around Judea, Samaria and Galilee, and then Damascus and Antioch.
                        > But I
                        > suppose that's covered by "working out from there."
                        >
                        > But remember that we began with the "originating proclamation."
                        > There were
                        > also households scattered about, in Galilee, and in Judea, where
                        > Jesus had
                        > friends who had hosted them during their travels. I look at these
                        > not in
                        > terms of "originating proclamation," but in terms of rank and file
                        > supporters.

                        This interests me. So, let's talk about Peter's mother-in-law or
                        Jairus and his daughter (and I am assuming here that they didn't go
                        to Jerusalem). On Easter Sunday morning back up there in Capernaum
                        were they or were they not members of "the Way?" (Again using Luke's
                        term from Acts). Did they have to wait to hear of Jesus' fate, what
                        God the Father did on Easter and the coming of the Holy Spirit on
                        Pentecost 50 days later in order to be these "rank and file supporters?"
                        >
                        >
                        >> I am still interested in why you think Luke has that right and/
                        >> or why
                        >> you think you can simply conflate Matthew's
                        >> ending with Luke's?
                        >
                        > Luke *and John.* I think Luke exaggerates the length and centrality of
                        > Jerusalem in order to make it his launching pad for the expanding
                        > ripples/
                        > concentric circles. I suspect that about half the disciples went
                        > back to
                        > Galilee fairly soon (after a week? two weeks?). Peter & John
                        > probably went
                        > back and forth a bunch, trying to figure out what their place was. I
                        > suspect that they probably recruited James (The "Lord's brother")
                        > during
                        > one of those journeys, and James relocated to Jerusalem relatively
                        > permanently. I'm leaning on John somewhat for that.

                        I am glad you brought up John here. In my view it was John, who in
                        his original Gospel ending of Chapter 20, created the Jerusalem
                        center. Of course for John the gift of the Holy Spirit is given
                        before Jesus' death! John really focuses the resurrection news
                        directly on Mary Magdalene's chat with Jesus and then Thomas', eight
                        days later, and then the original "not enough books" close. Luke
                        liked the Jerusalem center, and more on that in just a second, but he
                        decidedly did not like the gift of the Holy Spirit while Jesus was
                        alive, nor Mary and Thomas being the folks who had the privilege of
                        chatting with the resurrected Jesus! First, for Luke you just can't
                        have the alive Jesus give the gift of the Holy Spirit. Second, Luke
                        had to have this core resurrection proclamation centered on Peter and
                        not Mary. Third, in Luke's time he was having to deal with full
                        blown docetism and the Thomasine traditions (whether fairly or not)
                        had become associated with that. Luke liked the place, but none of
                        these things, so he wrote a completely new ending to the story.

                        And "why Jerusalem?" In my view, Luke wrote circa 120, shortly after
                        the rise of Hadrian. The old homeland, already once the site of a
                        destructive war, was cooking up again towards more rebellion. The
                        backwoods places were always troublesome hideouts for trouble
                        makers. And Jerusalem itself was the center where the trouble showed
                        up and exploded. Luke and Acts clearly show that this movement, that
                        yes started in the backwoods, came to Jerusalem as a peace movement
                        (Luke's lovely words on the lips of Jesus after the triumphal
                        entry... a crying Jesus says, "If you, even you, had only recognized
                        on this day the things that make for peace!" Lk. 19:42) Jesus is
                        clearly presented as a peace bringer. And then what is founded in
                        Jerusalem is a Spirited peace movement that has its eyes set on
                        getting the heck out of Jerusalem and all the way to Rome, quite
                        peacefully. Luke's Peter and Paul are mocked, jailed, beaten by both
                        rowdy Jews inside and later outside Palestine, and then Paul by other
                        rowdies in Asia Minor and Greece. That is no surprise to any Roman
                        ruler! But then to come to Jerusalem, Paul comes peacefully in
                        chains and is a model citizen in Rome. So this plot flow
                        acknowledges "the backwoods" start and that this backwoods movement
                        came to Jerusalem... but in peace and with no plans to stay there.
                        After the extremely tough times that ran from Nero's reign up through
                        the Flavian's, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, when it became
                        extremely important to be seen as a religion proper for the Empire
                        (so anciently rooted and presently peaceful), Luke's narrative plan
                        roots the Way folks, now become Christians, as meeting both
                        criteria. Luke changes Mark and Matthew's ending and John's ending,
                        too!
                        >
                        >
                        >> But now to go on and simply bring to the fore the specific answer, I
                        >> want to focus on "the homey's" as the central participants in this
                        >> reconciliation movement. I am emphasizing them because a.) this is
                        >> what the whole movement was about... forming a network of houses, and
                        >
                        > This is obviously *your* view. Where are the "apostles" in your
                        > view? They
                        > are the ones who have been "sent".
                        > If the focus was on the "homeys," how did the followers of Jesus
                        > ever get
                        > out of Galilee? How did the "network" become a "network"? Doesn't it
                        > require some folks to get up off their butts and go somewhere?

                        Of course. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but "the sent one's" are the
                        missionaries. But the mission agenda does not say, "bring these
                        folks to Jesus," nor "wait, we're front men and women to tell you
                        that Jesus is coming to see you." They went to homes to share peace,
                        lodging, meals with talk and healing. Stay one day... and then on to
                        the next town to find a welcoming house... and the next and the
                        next. That is how a network was formed. The later written gospels
                        will present Jesus as this peripatetic minister who most of the time
                        goes with this group of 12 guys. Why this shift? Well, "the
                        messenger becomes the message." The man of parables (and aphorisms)
                        becomes THE PARABLE." Whether you date Mark in 70 or 80 to 85, as I
                        do, few if any of these folks ever met Jesus. In the narrative
                        gospels, he becomes the center of the message. Ever after Mark the
                        central imagination of beginnings was changed. And theologically,
                        this is correct for Christianity. The kerygma becomes centered in
                        Jesus. But we are exploring how that came to be and hence our
                        different views on that.
                        >
                        > I am thinking perhaps you want a model like that of Cornelius:
                        > Acts 10:33 "Therefore I sent for you immediately, and you have been
                        > kind
                        > enough to come. So now all of us are here in the presence of God to
                        > listen
                        > to all that the Lord has commanded you to say."

                        Oh, how important Cornelius is for Luke. Roman soldiers were given
                        to all sorts of mystery cults. This was tolerable to the higher ups,
                        if these cults didn't effect their work. The Isis cults out of Egypt
                        and Mitracism were very, very popular. That a lead Roman soldier
                        would find this a fully acceptable cult to join was very important
                        news. His household joining the network bode very well for this
                        peace movement.
                        >
                        > So maybe they just generated such positive vibes that they were
                        > *invited*
                        > to go hither and yon, like Peter went to Cornelius, thereby adding
                        > another
                        > house to the network? But if so, how did they become well-known
                        > enough for
                        > peole to want to invite them? In the case of Cornelius, it was
                        > because he
                        > had heard of things Peter was *doing*: He was running around
                        > talking and
                        > healing people. Not that Peter had great dinner parties.

                        The really smart thing about this strategy, and lets go back to the
                        late 20's, is that the movement spread outward from Capernaum across
                        the Galilee, over to Herod Philip's territory (and best we can tell
                        he had "no eyes" on Jerusalem like his brother did) and even up into
                        southern Lebanon and perhaps even as far as Damascus. And it was a
                        peasant home centered movement. For Mark and Matthew, as they
                        stylized this later, "it was the Mount" there, that was the new Mount
                        (not Moses Sinai, nor David's Zion, but rather the Mount of
                        Beatitudes that now (per Isaiah) was "lifted up as the highest
                        mountain." So, we have a Capernaum, Galilee center and a spreading
                        network from there. That was a good and a strong base. Away from
                        troublesome Jerusalem. Not focused on Sepphoris or Tiberius. The
                        whole network concept is not "new center making" operation, but
                        rather an ever spreading network of connected homes.
                        >
                        > Or maybe you are thinking of Paul's house churches. But those
                        > didn't become
                        > house churches until Paul started preaching at them. So I don't get
                        > it.

                        Does the above, help?
                        >
                        >> b.) to actually contrast how such as Dom Crossan and the Jesus
                        >> Seminar more broadly emphasized the apostoloi. In my view they
                        >> became far too charmed with the Cynics lifestyle and overly focused
                        >> their interpretations about Jesus, "the Sent One's," and their
                        >> interpretations about Jesus' aphorisms that are aimed at those folks
                        >> on "a wandering lifestyle." I do think such as the sayings of
                        >> Diogenes of Sinope and the other aphoristic speech of the Cynics is
                        >> important. I also think we do need to consider these peripatetic
                        >> philosophers in relationship to "the goers." (It is a helpful to
                        >> think about this in relationship to the suggested dress and equipment
                        >> of "the goers.")
                        >
                        > No, I'm not going there. Crossan and Burton Mack's "Cynics" model
                        > doesn't
                        > work for me.
                        > But I'm not sure that I can articulate why very well.

                        From my vantage point the key thing that is helpful about the
                        Cynic's is their use of aphoristic and parabolic speech. And such as
                        Mack, Crossan and the Jesus Seminar broadly does focus on that.
                        Where I'm differing is in the focus that came up that has tended to
                        center the movement still around Jesus and the sent ones and their
                        supposed "itinerant lifestyle." I think it they are "goer's" and not
                        taking up a lifestyle! Peter had a house, a mother-in-law, so a
                        wife, at least at some point and probably kids and a fishing
                        business. I don't think Jesus ever intended for them to give this up
                        to take up a homeless lifestyle! He sent them to find more homes to
                        join the network.
                        >
                        > I think maybe its the message. The Jesus Seminar methodology
                        > selected for
                        > pithy aphorisms, and excluded Jewish piety because, well, it was
                        > Jewish
                        > piety and hence indistinguishable from the Jewish piety of the
                        > landscape.

                        Slow way down! In the first place, Jewish piety is filled with
                        wisdom speech. Please read Psalm 19, especially verse 7 and Psalm
                        119, especially verse 98, and Deuteronomy 4:5-9, noting especially
                        verse 6. From there read Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, the Wisdom of
                        Solomon and Sirach. And what is the legacy of Solomon? He was "the
                        what-est" man on earth? And end on Proverbs 9:1-6 about the role of
                        the Temple in all of this. Jewish piety was ***all about*** wisdom.
                        >
                        > I think that what Jesus was trying to do was to point people
                        > towards God.
                        > And he did that mostly by talking about the Kingdom of God.

                        And that is what wisdom speech does. As wisdom speech it points.
                        Later, once gathered and collected into groups of sayings, then
                        wisdom speech becomes didactic speech and affirmational speech.
                        Those are secondary uses of wisdom speech. But you are quite right
                        the aphoristic and parabolic speech "pointed." (I do hope you'll
                        read my articles in the 4 R about just this).

                        Briefly, let me simply point out where we find this memory preserved
                        in just the Canonical materials. So here, lay aside any thought
                        about Q or Thomas. I'll simply note the following list:
                        In I Cor. 1... it is wisdom first that is communicated in the cross
                        of Jesus.
                        In Mark 4 we find a collection of Jesus' parables strung together,
                        interpreted by Mark and then the closing words: v. 33-34 "...he did
                        not speak to them except in parables."
                        Matthew and Luke take Mark and (however you understand the source)
                        expanded Jesus speech greatly with parables and aphorisms. Matthew'
                        key sermon on the Mount presents us with a whole gathering of them.
                        Luke puts the sermon on "the Plain." And thanks to Luke we have such
                        as Good Sam and the Prodigal.
                        John's whole Gospel works off of parabolic communication... Jesus is
                        the parable and so is always doing multi-layered communication as
                        "the Wisdom Word made flesh."
                        And then James... the voice of the acknowledged early leader...
                        presents us "wisdom from above."
                        Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and James all point us to Jesus as a
                        wisdom speaker in life and as embodying God's wisdom in death. And
                        per James, what does this make for? "A harvest of righteousness is
                        sown in peace for those who make peace." (James 3:18)
                        >
                        > Peter, impetuous fellow that he was, didn't get the message quite
                        > right.
                        > Yeah, he got the repentance part OK, and he got the Holy Spirit
                        > thing down
                        > better than anyone except Jesus himself. But the *why* part zipped
                        > right
                        > over his head. I think I'm following
                        > <http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Figure-Jesus-E-Sanders/dp/
                        > 0140144994/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242288163&sr=1-2>The
                        > Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P.Sanders here. Or trying to.
                        >
                        > And I don't think that the Cynics were trying to point people
                        > towards God.

                        They were certainly pointing them to divine wisdom. But then the
                        theology of the Greek world wasn't that of Israel.
                        >
                        > The Jesus Seminar snipped that part out by their methodology.

                        Actually they didn't.
                        >
                        >> But I simply want to note that this was not about
                        >> taking up a counter-cultural lifestyle, nor your notion of "groovy
                        >> communes", but rather precisely about the making of a reconciliation
                        >> network. The going and the equipment and dress do contain part of
                        >> the messaging, but this, in my view, is entirely in service of "the
                        >> getting somewhere and making for something." That somewhere is to
                        >> the homes... and then others and then others....
                        >
                        > IMHO that's a byproduct of what Jesus intended. Yes, reconciliation
                        > happens, but it happens as a byproduct of getting right with God.
                        > And its
                        > very difficult to get that across correctly without over-obsessing
                        > on some
                        > transcendental God who has nothing to do with Earth. Gotta balance the
                        > immanent and the transcendant.

                        Huh? But let's leave aside theology and stick with our subject matter.
                        >
                        >> Also overlooked is that little notation in Mark 2:1, "When he
                        >> returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was
                        >> (emphasis) ***at home.***
                        >
                        > Well, Jesus doesn't seem to have been much of a homey. He seems more
                        > interested in going someplace else than staying at home reconciling
                        > people.

                        That's the way the stories will present him. Notably Mark's Jesus is
                        at this for no more than a year. John's very different itinerary
                        expands it to 3 years. Two things. First when I think of this from
                        my perspective, please remember that "the whole idea" among Jews was
                        ancient. And there are lots of stories in the OT of individuals
                        doing reconciliation work. Jesus and friends weren't inventors:)!
                        They were practicer's of "the Way" (of reconciliation). I don't
                        think this started with Jesus' baptism on a personal level. This is
                        rather a very Jewish thing to be about! What Jesus and friends did
                        was make for an intentional reconciliation network and his particular
                        genius with words made it come alive. Think how powerful speakers can
                        really give a boost, a new start and a major summarization to an old
                        idea. Civil Rights work had been going on for a long time. A simple
                        refusal to stand up on a bus became a rallying point and most
                        especially MLK, Jr.s speeches and sermons crystalized and epitomized
                        a new day in American Civil Rights. His words "travelled."

                        So, second. Jesus' pithy word and his tart stories "travelled."
                        "Love your enemies." "Bless those who persecute you." "If someone
                        strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other, as well." "...go the
                        extra mile..." "Blessed are the destitute." "There was a man who
                        had two sons..." Potent "pointing words" and stories. The apostles
                        took Jesus with them! They took these little word bombs. And per
                        your nice expression... with them they "pointed." Later on... 40 or
                        50 years later... the stories told are of Jesus going himself and
                        saying these words. In an economically short story, that was surely
                        the way to tell it. But that is summarization for theological
                        narratives, not history. Then and there, these folks were doing very
                        "Jewish stuff"... sharing reconciliation. And Jesus spirited little
                        words and stories were the proverbial juice of the "peace sharing."
                        >
                        >> Quite possibly and I would suggest
                        >> probably, Jesus lived in Capernaum in his own house or with friends
                        >> before the mission was set afoot and still while it was going on.
                        >
                        > So howcum we don't hear much about that?

                        In Mark we get that remembered, but then in Mark's plotting, per what
                        I have said, Jesus is the wisdom of God. He is 40/ 50 years later...
                        the Parable of God's Rule.
                        >
                        >> ....And let's not be literalistic about "the two's." Sometimes
                        >> Jesus and a group probably did travel. Sometimes Jesus may have gone
                        >> alone. Others sometimes probably went as one's, two's or three's,
                        >> etc. . . .
                        >
                        > Well, Philip went as a 'one' before he teamed up temporarily with the
                        > Ethiopian eunuch.
                        > I would not want to be rigid about the twos, but there are good
                        > reasons in
                        > human dynamics for pairs.

                        And most especially, per Paul, these were guy/ gal teams. He was the
                        odd bird in this and so notes it. My point here is not modern
                        concerns, but again, this really was a family kind of a thing and NOT
                        a male, hierarchical thing. I am going to get to the development of
                        a bureaucracy which will naturally develop in an ongoing movement.
                        But the heart of this whole network was again connecting
                        households... gals, guys, kids, grannies, etc. And gals, as much as
                        guys, could be and were "goers." None other than Paul tells us this.

                        >
                        >> So... key participants? The receiving home dwellers who accepted
                        >> "the Peace," provided lodging, fed "sent ones," listened to the
                        >> wisdom words, talked up "the Kingdom" in terms of the received
                        >> tradition, accepted "the healing," and became a part of the network.
                        >> Most are nameless to us, but then we do find some named home folk in
                        >> the available materials.
                        >
                        > I would point mainly to the Didache. And the Damascus group that
                        > received
                        > Saul before he became Paul.

                        I hope you'll spell this out a bit more.
                        >
                        > Well, this is all I've got time for tonight.

                        That was a long one and so is this response. I appreciate your
                        careful spelling out of your perspective and your willingness to
                        consider mine.

                        Peace!

                        Gordon Raynal
                        Inman, SC
                        >
                        > Aloha,
                        > Bob
                        >
                        >
                      • John E Staton
                        Oddly enough, Gordon, all but one of your list of reconcilers were actually leaders of ideological movements (Rabin being the exception). Granted that. for
                        Message 11 of 25 , May 14, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Oddly enough, Gordon, all but one of your list of "reconcilers" were
                          actually leaders of "ideological movements" (Rabin being the exception).
                          Granted that. for Ghandi, reconciliation was part of the ideology. Maybe
                          that was so for Jesus, also. But that means that the dynamics which
                          apply to ideological leaders apply to them also. Jesus was arguing for a
                          whole new interpretation of Torah, which was radical in his situation
                          (thought perhaps not unique). This means his followers had a message to
                          preach (and not just gnomic wisdom either!), as well as a practice to share.

                          Interestingly, your ideas seem to have a great deal in common with those
                          of John Vincent, British Methodist scholar and pastor who attempts a
                          kind of liberation theology in the context of Sheffield in the North of
                          England. But he advocates a date for Mark close to the consensus (about
                          70CE) and champions Mark as the gospel of praxis rather than preaching.
                          I'm not entirely convinced by his ideas, either.

                          Best Wishes

                          --
                          JOHN E STATON (BA Sheffield; DipTheol. Bristol)
                          Hull, UK
                          www.christianreflection.org.uk
                          ----------


                          ----------


                          No virus found in this outgoing message.
                          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                          Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.28/2113 - Release Date: 05/13/09 18:04:00


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Gordon Raynal
                          Hi John, ... First, don t you think Jesus was a lifelong Jew? I do. And I don t want to reduce that to an ideology. Second, I don t think Jesus wisdom
                          Message 12 of 25 , May 14, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi John,


                            On May 14, 2009, at 10:33 AM, John E Staton wrote:

                            > Oddly enough, Gordon, all but one of your list of "reconcilers" were
                            > actually leaders of "ideological movements" (Rabin being the
                            > exception).
                            > Granted that. for Ghandi, reconciliation was part of the ideology.
                            > Maybe
                            > that was so for Jesus, also. But that means that the dynamics which
                            > apply to ideological leaders apply to them also. Jesus was arguing
                            > for a
                            > whole new interpretation of Torah, which was radical in his situation
                            > (thought perhaps not unique). This means his followers had a
                            > message to
                            > preach (and not just gnomic wisdom either!), as well as a practice
                            > to share.

                            First, don't you think Jesus was a lifelong Jew? I do. And I don't
                            want to reduce that to "an ideology."
                            Second, I don't think Jesus' wisdom words are "arguing for a whole
                            new interpretation of Torah." (see such as Mark 12:28 ff). I think
                            he and his friends were trying to be good, reconciliation focused Jews.
                            Third, I'm not sure what you're implying with your description of
                            "gnomic wisdom." Expand on that. And to see what I think about
                            this, check out the latest "4th R" and the coming issue in July.
                            >
                            > Interestingly, your ideas seem to have a great deal in common with
                            > those
                            > of John Vincent, British Methodist scholar and pastor who attempts a
                            > kind of liberation theology in the context of Sheffield in the
                            > North of
                            > England. But he advocates a date for Mark close to the consensus
                            > (about
                            > 70CE) and champions Mark as the gospel of praxis rather than
                            > preaching.
                            > I'm not entirely convinced by his ideas, either.

                            Interesting. I'll stick with 80 to 85, for Mark. And it is a story
                            telling theological/ ethos work, in my view. A very classic wisdom
                            story, at that. It begins with citation of Isaianic words about
                            making for "a straight way." It ends in awe/ fear and running out
                            into the world. "The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of" what?
                            according to Job? And the existential question is, "what ***WAY***
                            are they going to run?"


                            >
                            > Best Wishes

                            and to you,

                            Gordon Raynal
                            Inman, SC
                            >
                          • Richard Fellows
                            I used to partition 2 Corinthians, but I would like now to offer the following explanation for the difference in mood between chapters 1-9 and 10-13. In 2
                            Message 13 of 25 , May 14, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I used to partition 2 Corinthians, but I would like now to offer the
                              following explanation for the difference in mood between chapters 1-9
                              and 10-13.

                              In 2 Corinthians Titus (also known as Timothy) is sent back to Corinth
                              to finish the collection there, with the aim of bringing it to
                              completion (2 Cor 8:6) by delivering it to Judea (Acts 20:4). It is
                              therefore important that the Corinthians should trust him. Paul
                              therefore wants the Corinthians to believe that Titus had reported
                              only good things about them. This is why Paul reserves all his harsh
                              criticism of the Corinthians for the final four chapters, which occur
                              after Paul has completed his response to information that he is happy
                              to concede has come from Titus-Timothy. Titus-Timothy is a co-sender
                              of the letter (2 Cor 1:1), so Paul must make it clear that chapters
                              10-13 are his alone, and he does so by using mostly the first person
                              singular and by opening the section with the words, "AUTOS DE EGW
                              PAULOS" (I myself Paul) (10:1). 2 Corinthians is therefore a unity
                              that is made up of two parts: chapters 1-9 are from Paul and Titus-
                              Timothy, and chapters 10-13 are from Paul alone (to avoid any backlash
                              against Titus-Timothy).

                              Does this make sense?

                              Richard Fellows
                              Vancouver
                            • John E Staton
                              Gordon, Of course Jesus was being a good Jew! The same could be said of most of the radical Jewish groups around at the same time: the Qumran group, the
                              Message 14 of 25 , May 19, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Gordon,
                                Of course Jesus was being a good Jew! The same could be said of most of
                                the radical Jewish groups around at the same time: the Qumran group, the
                                Pharisees etc, all recalling Judaism to its roots and all doing it in a
                                different manner. All these groups (including the Jesus movement)
                                thought their co-religionists had lost their way and were recalling them
                                to the "right path" - though they all had different views of what the
                                right path was!

                                I don't see the point in getting into a debate about preaching and
                                teaching, You seem to be working with a very formal defintion, whereas I
                                would include the kind of conversations you are talking about under
                                the same heading. And I am not interested in the "what if" question
                                because, as far as I am concerned, it never was going to happen

                                Best Wishes

                                --
                                JOHN E STATON (BA Sheffield; DipTheol. Bristol)
                                Hull, UK
                                www.christianreflection.org.uk

                                ----------


                                ----------


                                No virus found in this outgoing message.
                                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.33/2120 - Release Date: 05/18/09 06:28:00


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Gordon Raynal
                                Hi John, ... In like fashion with the term, ideology, I don t want to now get stuck in our, perhaps, differing understandings of radical. But are you
                                Message 15 of 25 , May 19, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi John,

                                  On May 19, 2009, at 4:29 AM, John E Staton wrote:

                                  > Gordon,
                                  > Of course Jesus was being a good Jew! The same could be said of
                                  > most of
                                  > the radical Jewish groups around at the same time: the Qumran
                                  > group, the
                                  > Pharisees etc, all recalling Judaism to its roots and all doing it
                                  > in a
                                  > different manner. All these groups (including the Jesus movement)
                                  > thought their co-religionists had lost their way and were recalling
                                  > them
                                  > to the "right path" - though they all had different views of what the
                                  > right path was!

                                  In like fashion with the term, "ideology," I don't want to now get
                                  stuck in our, perhaps, differing understandings of "radical." But
                                  are you saying the Qumran group, the Pharisees, and whoever else
                                  included in "etc." were "radicals?" Who wasn't then? Who/ what the
                                  standard of normative Judaism in the era which radicalism (degree,
                                  kind, extent) can be assessed? Help me with this? On your scale of
                                  "radicalism" who was more radical and who was less radical and why?
                                  >
                                  > I don't see the point in getting into a debate about preaching and
                                  > teaching, You seem to be working with a very formal defintion,
                                  > whereas I
                                  > would include the kind of conversations you are talking about under
                                  > the same heading.

                                  Fine not to get into any debates you don't want to. But what I'm
                                  trying to stick up for is a careful understanding of the ways and
                                  purposes of differing forms of human communication. Wisdom words
                                  and stories have a different modus operandi than does prophetic
                                  speech, didactic speech, juridical speech, etc. Regarding wisdom
                                  speech specifically there are both "common (ordinary) sense" and
                                  "uncommon (extra-ordinary) sense" forms of it. The primary use of
                                  wisdom speech has to do with sense making. Secondary usage of such
                                  speech is used to teach, admonish, proclaim. With wisdom language it
                                  is important to pay close attention to the transitions between the
                                  primary and secondary uses. A non- Biblical example first:

                                  "Look both ways before you cross the street" is an proverb that as
                                  wisdom speech parents tell children when they are at the roadside.
                                  The immediate point of such speech is to do what? Look! Wait if
                                  cars are coming, then go when it is safe to do so. Then and there
                                  and amidst modern roads and vehicles which weigh tons it is unwise to
                                  not do this. Duh? Right? Actually not a lot of high level knowledge
                                  in such a little expression. On the level of information/ idea
                                  sharing... upon reflection, it seems all rather banal. But... if
                                  you're with your 5 year old in the front yard and the ball you're
                                  throwing goes out in the road, it is extremely wise to say this to
                                  your child! Correct? Such speech points the hearer to engage their
                                  senses and really pay attention to "what's happening" and respond
                                  with their whole being accordingly (use senses, pay attention, be of
                                  clear mind, fully feel, plan accordingly and act accordingly). To be
                                  silly you don't say such to then and there get your child to give you
                                  a dissertation on the mass of objects moving through the space-time
                                  continuum and their, (pardon the pun) impact on flesh and bones:)!

                                  The second use of the above comes when such is written down with
                                  other rules and publishes in an article, say "10 rules for safety
                                  while playing ball in the yard." Same words used, but now collected,
                                  meant as didactic and juridical speech. For your now 7 year old who
                                  is in school reading, then such would make a fine piece of literature
                                  for school age kids to remember and fully know. Same words, now
                                  different use. Now gathered with the other 9 rules such a little
                                  list, once learned, can be the whole basis for years of more advanced
                                  safety education.

                                  I trust this example isn't too laborious. It is much easier to
                                  actually show this in present company than it is to explain it via
                                  written communication. But to Jesus and friends, we have access to
                                  the wisdom words through later written collections of them.
                                  Originally, of course, this was speech and what I want to maintain is
                                  that one needs to start with the individual sayings and stories on
                                  their own, as spoken words, functioning as primary wisdom speech.
                                  From there, then it is important to pay close heed to a.) what
                                  sayings are gathered together, by whom and what contexts they are
                                  presented in, b.) how the authors are framing the didactic and
                                  juridical lessons, and so c.) the particular emendations that are
                                  added to such speech forms (whether changing, expanding, and/ or
                                  recontextualizing the sayings/ stories, and so also d.) what other
                                  kinds of OT traditions are being drawn around the sayings, and e.)
                                  what of the early communal theological ideas, ethical ideas, praxis
                                  ideas are in play in the framing of the speech, and f.) what tracing
                                  across time may be done that might tell us about development in
                                  didactics, affirmations, juridical pronouncements. So, for just one
                                  example of this:

                                  1."love your enemies" is an aphorism. as wisdom speech it is a
                                  little word bomb!
                                  2. earliest I can tell, from Q1 this is drawn together with a whole
                                  series of other sayings that are kept together across the redactions
                                  Q and preserved in Luke as a unit.
                                  3. this unit from Q is placed in what is known as "the Q sermon" (so
                                  now we've moved from orality to written collection/ from prime wisdom
                                  usage to didactic and juridical usage)
                                  4. Matthew frames this unit in terms of a very elaborate Sermon on
                                  the Mount with much Torah talk.
                                  5. Luke frames the unit as the Sermon on the Plain
                                  6. We find this unit also forwarded in the Didache with some
                                  expansions as being, "the Way of Life."


                                  And then one can talk about associated beliefs, values, practices and
                                  make a case for the relationship to the original words and the
                                  earliest written formulations and how these develop over time/ across
                                  literature... for instance the pericopes where Jesus is show to talk
                                  about the greatest commandments and such as Thomas 25.

                                  What I am after in this is careful attention to listening to the
                                  words at the level or orality and in terms of the overall context of
                                  (most especially) table fellowship in order to try to pay close heed
                                  to wisdom words in their primary usage. If one only starts with the
                                  secondary usage, then one has lopped off an essential part, indeed
                                  the most essential part, of understanding the speech and how it
                                  functioned. Said, the simplest way I know how, the power of wisdom
                                  speech is that it is language aimed at making sense. "Making sense"
                                  is something we pretty much take for granted in "normal times." But
                                  when times are hostile, divisive, unjust, frightening, etc. such is
                                  incredibly powerful speech ***as wisdom speech***.

                                  To my first example to make the point. If you as parent don't yell,
                                  "Look both ways before you cross the street," when your child is all
                                  excited about getting her ball back, that child will probably never
                                  live to go to school to study about "10 Rules of Safety!" Learning
                                  is fine, but sense is always more important! Wisdom and knowledge
                                  are ever related, but they ***are not*** the same thing.

                                  Jesus, by my estimation, was the speaker of a very large collection
                                  of these sayings. Often they are only talked about in their
                                  secondary usage. Related to this whole thread about "original and
                                  originating" Good News, I very much thing the meat of the matter is
                                  in trying to listen to these words as what they primarily are... wisdom.

                                  > And I am not interested in the "what if" question
                                  > because, as far as I am concerned, it never was going to happen

                                  Interesting. As a thought exercise, I think it is an interesting
                                  one. (Not the purpose of this list), but it is also an interesting
                                  theological exercise. That said, I'm still interested to hear you
                                  elaborate on the issue you raised, the "who Jesus was" question and
                                  my question about "what essentially defines" that answer for you.

                                  take care,
                                  Gordon Raynal
                                  Inman, SC
                                  >
                                • Richard Fellows
                                  The Judean church leaders wrote a letter affirming Gentile liberty (Acts 15:19-29). Paul delivered this letter to the south Galatian churches and
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jun 15, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    The Judean church leaders wrote a letter affirming Gentile liberty
                                    (Acts 15:19-29). Paul delivered this letter to the south Galatian
                                    churches and simultaneously circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3-4). I
                                    suggest that this made the Galatian believers confused about what Paul
                                    actually believed and that Paul's letter to them is his response to
                                    this confusion. Paul circumcised Timothy to help him gain an audience
                                    with Jews, but Paul could not explain that that was his motive, for
                                    the Jews whom he hoped to bring to Christ would not have responded
                                    favorably. At some point after Paul left Galatia some there said,
                                    "Paul circumcised Timothy, so he must believe in circumcision, so it's
                                    OK for other Gentile believers to be circumcised. It is true that he
                                    preached Gentile liberty, but he must have done so only to please the
                                    Jerusalem church leaders who had written that letter. The real Paul
                                    believes in circumcision."

                                    These rumors in Galatia explain the letter:

                                    5:11 reads, "why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching
                                    circumcision?". The believers thought Paul supported circumcision.
                                    Does the second "still" (ETI) in this verse indicate that Paul is
                                    admitting here that he had recommended circumcision to Timothy?

                                    6:17 reads, "From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry
                                    the marks of Jesus branded on my body". Paul is saying here, "Let no-
                                    one question my commitment, for I have the wounds to prove it".
                                    Chrysostom understood this: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23106.htm

                                    5:2 reads, "Listen, I ,Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves
                                    be circumcised, Christ will be on no benefit to you." This is a strong
                                    statement. Here Paul over-states his position to correct the rumor
                                    that he believed in circumcision. Paul writes, "I, Paul" to make it
                                    clear that these are his own beliefs: he is not writing these things
                                    to please the Jerusalem church leaders. With the "I, Paul" he detaches
                                    himself from Silas and other Jerusalem church leaders, just as he
                                    detaches himself from Timothy with the "I, Paul" in 2 Cor 10:1.

                                    5:10 says, "But whoever it is that is confusing (TARASSWN) you will
                                    pay the penalty". 5:11 shows that the confusion was the rumor that
                                    Paul supported circumcision. The same word appears in 1:7, "there are
                                    some who are confusing you". 1:8 read, "But even if we or an angel
                                    from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we
                                    proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!". Paul, then, is here
                                    refuting the view that he had endorsed circumcision. The charge that
                                    he supported circumcision therefore lies behind 1:8-9 as well as 5:11.

                                    1:8-9 in turn provides the background to 1:10-24, where Paul explains
                                    (overstates?) that he was not an underling of the Jerusalem church
                                    leaders. He does this to refute the view that he preached Gentile
                                    liberty with the sole purpose of pleasing them. He makes it clear that
                                    he had preached his gospel even before he had had much contact with
                                    the Jerusalem leaders. Paul does this to prove that his preaching was
                                    not done out of obedience to the Jerusalem leaders.

                                    Gal 2:6 reads, "And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged
                                    leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me: God shows
                                    no partiality)". Paul here asserts again that he was not an underling
                                    of the apostles: his preaching and writing derived from the
                                    revelation that he had received from God, and were not done
                                    insincerely to please the Jerusalem apostles.

                                    In Gal 2:11-14 Paul selects an incident that must have been very
                                    atypical, since Acts and Gal 2:1-10 indicate that Paul and Peter were
                                    in agreement that Gentile liberty was important. Paul here asserts his
                                    own commitment to the cause of Gentile liberty: he opposed Peter "to
                                    his face" and "before them all", and he stood alone even after the
                                    other Jews fell away. Paul stresses here that his commitment to
                                    Gentile liberty is sincere. He had taken a stand against Peter himself
                                    on this very issue. He selects this incident because it shows that his
                                    support for Gentile liberty was not motived by a desire to please Peter.

                                    This understanding of Galatians seems to reconcile the letter with Acts.

                                    Does this work?

                                    Richard Fellows
                                    Vancouver.


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Kenneth Litwak
                                    Richard,    That s an interesting idea, but I m not quite convinced.  I see no way that Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15 could refer to the same event.  Rather, I am
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jun 24, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Richard,

                                         That's an interesting idea, but I'm not quite convinced.  I see no way that Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15 could refer to the same event.  Rather, I am in the company of those who think that Galatians was written before the events in Acts 15.  Otherwise, it would be clear to Gentiles that, no matter what Paul did with Timothy, they did not need to keep the Law.  I would quickly add that those who take the view that Paul's autobiographical info is von Rankean history, wie es eigentlich gewesen, have adopted an invalid view of how history is written, no matter who wrote it.  To assume that Luke was stupid or invented the story out of thin air and that Paul's account must refer to the same encounter is gratuitous and disingenuous at the very least.  I don't see any way to match Galatians 2 with Acts 15.  Galatians 2 must recount a previous event, IMHO. 

                                      Ken Litwak

                                      --- On Mon, 6/15/09, Richard Fellows <rfellows@...> wrote:

                                      From: Richard Fellows <rfellows@...>
                                      Subject: [XTalk] The background to Galatians
                                      To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 9:19 PM

















                                      The Judean church leaders wrote a letter affirming Gentile liberty

                                      (Acts 15:19-29). Paul delivered this letter to the south Galatian

                                      churches and simultaneously circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3-4). I

                                      suggest that this made the Galatian believers confused about what Paul

                                      actually believed and that Paul's letter to them is his response to

                                      this confusion. Paul circumcised Timothy to help him gain an audience

                                      with Jews, but Paul could not explain that that was his motive, for

                                      the Jews whom he hoped to bring to Christ would not have responded

                                      favorably. At some point after Paul left Galatia some there said,

                                      "Paul circumcised Timothy, so he must believe in circumcision, so it's

                                      OK for other Gentile believers to be circumcised. It is true that he

                                      preached Gentile liberty, but he must have done so only to please the

                                      Jerusalem church leaders who had written that letter. The real Paul

                                      believes in circumcision. "



                                      These rumors in Galatia explain the letter:



                                      5:11 reads, "why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching

                                      circumcision? ". The believers thought Paul supported circumcision.

                                      Does the second "still" (ETI) in this verse indicate that Paul is

                                      admitting here that he had recommended circumcision to Timothy?



                                      6:17 reads, "From now on, let no one make trouble for me; for I carry

                                      the marks of Jesus branded on my body". Paul is saying here, "Let no-

                                      one question my commitment, for I have the wounds to prove it".

                                      Chrysostom understood this: http://www.newadven t.org/fathers/ 23106.htm



                                      5:2 reads, "Listen, I ,Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves

                                      be circumcised, Christ will be on no benefit to you." This is a strong

                                      statement. Here Paul over-states his position to correct the rumor

                                      that he believed in circumcision. Paul writes, "I, Paul" to make it

                                      clear that these are his own beliefs: he is not writing these things

                                      to please the Jerusalem church leaders. With the "I, Paul" he detaches

                                      himself from Silas and other Jerusalem church leaders, just as he

                                      detaches himself from Timothy with the "I, Paul" in 2 Cor 10:1.



                                      5:10 says, "But whoever it is that is confusing (TARASSWN) you will

                                      pay the penalty". 5:11 shows that the confusion was the rumor that

                                      Paul supported circumcision. The same word appears in 1:7, "there are

                                      some who are confusing you". 1:8 read, "But even if we or an angel

                                      from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we

                                      proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!". Paul, then, is here

                                      refuting the view that he had endorsed circumcision. The charge that

                                      he supported circumcision therefore lies behind 1:8-9 as well as 5:11.



                                      1:8-9 in turn provides the background to 1:10-24, where Paul explains

                                      (overstates? ) that he was not an underling of the Jerusalem church

                                      leaders. He does this to refute the view that he preached Gentile

                                      liberty with the sole purpose of pleasing them. He makes it clear that

                                      he had preached his gospel even before he had had much contact with

                                      the Jerusalem leaders. Paul does this to prove that his preaching was

                                      not done out of obedience to the Jerusalem leaders.



                                      Gal 2:6 reads, "And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged

                                      leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me: God shows

                                      no partiality)" . Paul here asserts again that he was not an underling

                                      of the apostles: his preaching and writing derived from the

                                      revelation that he had received from God, and were not done

                                      insincerely to please the Jerusalem apostles.



                                      In Gal 2:11-14 Paul selects an incident that must have been very

                                      atypical, since Acts and Gal 2:1-10 indicate that Paul and Peter were

                                      in agreement that Gentile liberty was important. Paul here asserts his

                                      own commitment to the cause of Gentile liberty: he opposed Peter "to

                                      his face" and "before them all", and he stood alone even after the

                                      other Jews fell away. Paul stresses here that his commitment to

                                      Gentile liberty is sincere. He had taken a stand against Peter himself

                                      on this very issue. He selects this incident because it shows that his

                                      support for Gentile liberty was not motived by a desire to please Peter.



                                      This understanding of Galatians seems to reconcile the letter with Acts.



                                      Does this work?



                                      Richard Fellows

                                      Vancouver.



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































                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Richard Fellows
                                      Thanks, Ken, I agree with much of what you write. Also, I take Acts to be historical, and it is precisely for that reason that I equate Gal 2 with Acts 15
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jul 23, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Thanks, Ken,

                                        I agree with much of what you write. Also, I take Acts to be historical, and it is precisely for that reason that I equate Gal 2 with Acts 15 (see, for example, my recent email on chronology).

                                        You assume (I think) that the outcome of the Acts 15 meeting would have prevented the circumcision issue from arising in (south) Galatia. But is this really a safe assumption? Following the delivery of the decree the south Galatians would know that the Judean church leaders did not support circumcision, but why must we assume that the authority of the Judean church leaders held sway in south Galatia? The decree does not make its case by appealing to any words of Jesus, so the agitators in Galatia would surely wish to question its validity. Peter, James, and the elders had never been to Galatia, so why should the Galatians accept their authority as absolute?

                                        The scenario may have been something like this:
                                        1. The decree was delivered to south Galatia
                                        2. The agitators argued, "The doctrine of Gentile liberty is a mistaken inference from a single vision of Peter (whom you do not recognize). Paul (your 'father') circumcised Timothy so he actually supports circumcision, so you should be circumcised too. Paul's verbal support for Gentile liberty was just to please Peter and the others, so it does not represent an independent second witness to the will of God.
                                        3. Paul wrote the letter in response, arguing that his revelation was independent; that he was no underling of Peter and the others on this issue; and that they should not believe the rumor that he supports circumcision.

                                        Ken, does this answer your objection to equating Gal 2 with Acts 15? Do you see any other difficulties with the equation, or indeed with my reconstruction of the background to the letter?

                                        I have made my proposal available on the web here:

                                        http://members.shaw.ca/rfellows/Site/T-T_Galatians_background.html

                                        Richard Fellows
                                        Vancouver.

                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: Kenneth Litwak <javajedi2@...>
                                        Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:22 pm
                                        Subject: Re: [XTalk] The background to Galatians
                                        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com

                                        > Richard,
                                        >
                                        >    That's an interesting idea, but I'm not quite convinced.  I
                                        > see no way that Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15 could refer to the same
                                        > event.  Rather, I am in the company of those who think that
                                        > Galatians was written before the events in Acts 15.  Otherwise,
                                        > it would be clear to Gentiles that, no matter what Paul did with
                                        > Timothy, they did not need to keep the Law.  I would quickly add
                                        > that those who take the view that Paul's autobiographical info
                                        > is von Rankean history, wie es eigentlich gewesen, have adopted
                                        > an invalid view of how history is written, no matter who wrote
                                        > it.  To assume that Luke was stupid or invented the story out of
                                        > thin air and that Paul's account must refer to the same
                                        > encounter is gratuitous and disingenuous at the very least.  I
                                        > don't see any way to match Galatians 2 with Acts 15.  Galatians
                                        > 2 must recount a previous event, IMHO. 
                                        >
                                        > Ken Litwak


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