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

Re: [XTalk] arrest of Jesus

Expand Messages
  • Richard Anderson
    Arrest of Jesus: Ted Weeden s thesis Interestingly, GMark does not identify the man who cut off the ear of the servant of the High Priest. The GJohn tells us
    Message 1 of 9 , May 28, 2000
      Arrest of Jesus: Ted Weeden's thesis
      Interestingly, GMark does not identify the man who cut off the ear of the
      servant of the High Priest. The GJohn tells us it was Peter. Your thesis
      does not address this event. It seems to me Mark could have utilized this
      to demonstrate that Peter did not understand the true message and mission of
      Jesus.
      Ricard H. Anderson
    • Ted Weeden
      Richard Anderson, I am going to respond to several of your recent posts in this one. ... of ... Funk and the Jesus Seminar (_Acts of Jesus_, 431) concluded
      Message 2 of 9 , May 30, 2000
        Richard Anderson,

        I am going to respond to several of your recent posts in this one.

        On 5/28 at 11:42 you wrote:

        > Arrest of Jesus: Ted Weeden's thesis
        > Interestingly, GMark does not identify the man who cut off the ear of the
        > servant of the High Priest. The GJohn tells us it was Peter. Your thesis
        > does not address this event. It seems to me Mark could have utilized this
        > to demonstrate that Peter did not understand the true message and mission
        of
        > Jesus.

        Funk and the Jesus Seminar (_Acts of Jesus_, 431) concluded that the
        incident to which you refer is a sign of "intimate knowledge generated by a
        vigorous imagination." Since Mark, in my judgment created the Gethsemane
        story out of "whole cloth," with ideas with respect to place (Mount of
        Olives) and betrayal by a (Ahithopel's betrayal of David) drawn from II Sam.
        15-17, I agree. John is trying to add the spice of violence to the story.

        On your post of 5/28 at 2:51 PM you wrote:
        > Does the Lucan portrayal of Peter in Acts support your position? Does your
        > Mark know of the traditions in Acts?

        > Peter claimed the need to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Does not >
        Luke effectively rehabilitate Peter?

        > Is Mark being critical of the traditions of Peter reported in Acts? Isn't
        your > Mark critical of the traditions and theology of Luke-Acts?
        > Mark and Luke are two followers of Paul who have two different views of
        > the message and mission of Jesus.

        > Luke recognizes this and deliberately places Mark in a bad light in Acts
        yet > scholars have repeatedly said Luke presents a smooth idyllic non
        > controversial picture of the growth of Christianity.

        My response:

        I, as is the case of many other scholars, do not hold that the "Luke" and
        "Mark" mentioned in Acts were the authors of Luke-Acts and Mark
        respectively. We do not know who the historical authors of Luke/Acts and
        Mark were, even though we do still call them "Luke" and "Mark." The author
        of Acts is purposely trying to present, as you say "a smooth idyllic
        non-controversial picture of the growth of Christianity. Luke does
        rehabilitate Peter. Mark does hold a radically different christology from
        that of Acts.

        In your post of 5/28 at 3:51 you wrote:

        > The Lucan Peter in Acts compares the Jewish leadership traditionally
        > endowed with the spirit but now disobedient and obedient Christians.
        > Weeden's Mark seemingly puts Peter in the same category with the
        > Jewish leadership. They did not know who Jesus was nor did they
        > understand his mission. Luke and Mark have two different views of Peter.
        > Is Mark critical of the traditions reported in Luke-Acts?

        My response:

        I believe I answered you question in my response to the previous post.
        Mark does cast Peter as an apostate, in my judgment, but I do not view Mark
        as linking Peter with the Jerusalem church.

        With respect to your post of 5/30, thank you for alerting me to these books
        and the reviews. I am always indebted to those who draw my attention to
        publications I need to take into consideration in my study of Mark

        Ted
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... Tom, Are you saying that there were no manuscripts of 2 Samuel found among the DSS or that there was no trace of 2 Sam. 15-17 what scrolls of Samuel were
        Message 3 of 9 , May 30, 2000
          In reference to Ted Weeden's note that:

          > Since Mark, in my judgment created the Gethsemane
          > >story out of "whole cloth," with ideas with respect to place (Mount of
          > >Olives) and betrayal by a (Ahithopel's betrayal of David) drawn from II Sam.
          > >15-17, I agree. John is trying to add the spice of violence to the story.

          Tom Simms wrote:

          > The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING of this text nor do they
          > contain any MSS which suggests this "Book" existed. Also, as I
          > understand, no before the Turn of the Era MSS show any evidence
          > of either book of Samuel. Hence, to me, the material was being
          > assembled, bruited about and talked over as the Tanakh began to
          > grow.

          Tom,

          Are you saying that there were no manuscripts of 2 Samuel found among the DSS or
          that there was no trace of 2 Sam. 15-17 what scrolls of Samuel were found?

          Yours,

          Jeffrey Gibson


          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson
          7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
          Chicago, Illinois 60626
          e-mail jgibson000@...
          jgibson000@...
        • Tom Simms
          ... [... snip ... noted ...] ... Ted, The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING of this text nor do they contain any MSS which suggests this Book existed. Also,
          Message 4 of 9 , May 30, 2000
            On Tue, 30 May 2000 12:49:03 -0500, weedent@... writes:
            >Richard Anderson,
            >I am going to respond to several of your recent posts in this one.

            [... snip ... noted ...]

            >> to demonstrate that Peter did not understand the true message and mission
            >> of Jesus.
            >
            >Funk and the Jesus Seminar (_Acts of Jesus_, 431) concluded that the
            >incident to which you refer is a sign of "intimate knowledge generated by a
            >vigorous imagination." Since Mark, in my judgment created the Gethsemane
            >story out of "whole cloth," with ideas with respect to place (Mount of
            >Olives) and betrayal by a (Ahithopel's betrayal of David) drawn from II Sam.
            >15-17, I agree. John is trying to add the spice of violence to the story.

            Ted,

            The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING of this text nor do they
            contain any MSS which suggests this "Book" existed. Also, as I
            understand, no before the Turn of the Era MSS show any evidence
            of either book of Samuel. Hence, to me, the material was being
            assembled, bruited about and talked over as the Tanakh began to
            grow.

            This means therefore that any analysis leading from II Sam rests on
            sand until such time as the connection can be shown. That it's a
            "work of vigorous imagination" is easy to accept. How much more
            of Mark is of that kind? You have NO outside evidence any of his
            account happened, do you? (Unless you want to get into Empress
            Helena's artifacts and other such items such as the Satyricon.)
            This seems where you're going, doesn't it?

            Regards,

            Tom Simms
          • Liz Fried
            Dear All, I am reading McCarter s Anchor Bible Commentary on 2 Samuel. In his commentary on 2 Sam. 15 he cites alternative readings in the LXX and in 4QSam
            Message 5 of 9 , May 30, 2000
              Dear All,
              I am reading McCarter's Anchor Bible Commentary on 2 Samuel.
              In his commentary on 2 Sam. 15 he cites alternative readings in the LXX
              and in 4QSam -a-c. According to McCarter 4QSam-c contains 2 Sam. 14-15.
              4QSam-a contains parts of much of 1 and 2 Sam. McCarter's feeling is that
              the scrolls were close to the LXX originally, and therefore contained all
              that
              that manuscript has.
              Liz Fried

              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Jeffrey B. Gibson [mailto:jgibson000@...]
              > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 5:41 PM
              > To: crosstalk2@egroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [XTalk] arrest of Jesus
              >
              >
              > In reference to Ted Weeden's note that:
              >
              > > Since Mark, in my judgment created the Gethsemane
              > > >story out of "whole cloth," with ideas with respect to place (Mount of
              > > >Olives) and betrayal by a (Ahithopel's betrayal of David)
              > drawn from II Sam.
              > > >15-17, I agree. John is trying to add the spice of violence
              > to the story.
              >
              > Tom Simms wrote:
              >
              > > The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING of this text nor do they
              > > contain any MSS which suggests this "Book" existed. Also, as I
              > > understand, no before the Turn of the Era MSS show any evidence
              > > of either book of Samuel. Hence, to me, the material was being
              > > assembled, bruited about and talked over as the Tanakh began to
              > > grow.
              >
              > Tom,
              >
              > Are you saying that there were no manuscripts of 2 Samuel found
              > among the DSS or
              > that there was no trace of 2 Sam. 15-17 what scrolls of Samuel were found?
              >
              > Yours,
              >
              > Jeffrey Gibson
              >
              >
              > --
              > Jeffrey B. Gibson
              > 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
              > Chicago, Illinois 60626
              > e-mail jgibson000@...
              > jgibson000@...
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              > Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations.
              > Remember the good 'ol days
              > http://click.egroups.com/1/4053/3/_/713/_/959722753/
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
              >
              > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
              >
              > To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
              >
              >
            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
              In response to my inquiry regarding whether Tom Simms was saying ... Tom Simms replied ... And I suggest that you look at _The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_ ed. M.
              Message 6 of 9 , May 30, 2000
                In response to my inquiry regarding whether Tom Simms was saying

                > >... that there were no manuscripts of 2 Samuel found among the DSS or
                > >that there was no trace of 2 Sam. 15-17 what scrolls of Samuel were found?

                Tom Simms replied

                > Identified as coming from a MSS containing Samuel material? No.
                > I suggest you look at Wise, Abegg and Cook, p. 227 to see the context
                > of the Samuel finds. There are a total of twenty-four verses indexed.
                > The later Encyclopedia contains MSS from other finds, such as at
                > Murrabba'at.

                And I suggest that you look at _The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_ " ed. M. Abegg, P. Flint,
                and E. Ulrich along with the latest edition of Geza Vermes' _An Introduction to the
                Complete Dead Sea Scrolls_ where it is independently noted that that we have 4 MSS
                of Samuel. 1 from cave 1 and 3 from cave 4. 2 Sam 15-17 is found in 4QSam(c). (also
                4qsam(a). True, the MSS break off and contain only v.23 of chap 17 and chap 16 is
                fragmentary, but this seems to be due to the vicissitudes of preservation and NOT to
                the fact that Samuel was not known and used at Qumran (let alone anywhere else) as
                you seem to be claiming.

                It seems to me that your appeal to WAC for your contention (and the conclusion you
                draw from it regarding Ted's thesis) is faulty because you assume that WAC are intent
                to do something that they never claimed they were doing, namely listing all of the
                **biblical** manuscripts found at Qumran. The fact that the manuscripts of Samuel are
                not, or are only incompletely, indexed in their texts is NOT, therefore, due to the
                fact that no MSS of Samuel were found at Qumran, but that it was never WACs'
                intention to list all of, let alone discuss, the specifically BIblical finds.

                Yours,

                Jeffrey Gibson
                --
                Jeffrey B. Gibson
                7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                Chicago, Illinois 60626
                e-mail jgibson000@...
                jgibson000@...
              • Tom Simms
                ... Identified as coming from a MSS containing Samuel material? No. I suggest you look at Wise, Abegg and Cook, p. 227 to see the context of the Samuel finds.
                Message 7 of 9 , May 30, 2000
                  On Tue, 30 May 2000 16:40:34 -0500, jgibson000@... writes:
                  >
                  >In reference to Ted Weeden's note that:
                  >
                  >> Since Mark, in my judgment created the Gethsemane
                  >> >story out of "whole cloth," with ideas with respect to place (Mount of
                  >> >Olives) and betrayal by a (Ahithopel's betrayal of David) drawn from II Sam.
                  >> >15-17, I agree. John is trying to add the spice of violence to the story.
                  >
                  >Tom Simms wrote:
                  >
                  >> The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING of this text nor do they
                  >> contain any MSS which suggests this "Book" existed. Also, as I
                  >> understand, no before the Turn of the Era MSS show any evidence
                  >> of either book of Samuel. Hence, to me, the material was being
                  >> assembled, bruited about and talked over as the Tanakh began to
                  >> grow.
                  >
                  >Tom,
                  >
                  >Are you saying that there were no manuscripts of 2 Samuel found among the DSS or
                  >that there was no trace of 2 Sam. 15-17 what scrolls of Samuel were found?

                  Identified as coming from a MSS containing Samuel material? No.
                  I suggest you look at Wise, Abegg and Cook, p. 227 to see the context
                  of the Samuel finds. There are a total of twenty-four verses indexed.
                  The later Encyclopedia contains MSS from other finds, such as at
                  Murrabba'at.

                  >Yours,
                  >
                  >Jeffrey Gibson
                  >

                  Regards,

                  Tom Simms

                  >--
                  >Jeffrey B. Gibson
                  >7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                  >Chicago, Illinois 60626
                  >e-mail jgibson000@...
                  > jgibson000@...
                • Tom Simms
                  ... Antedeliuvian. ... From the Hexpla? If it s pre-Titus, Vespasian, I d Love to know, for I don t like where deconstructionism is taking me. ... Here s
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 30, 2000
                    On Tue, 30 May 2000 18:08:02 -0400, lizfried@... writes:
                    >
                    >Dear All,
                    >I am reading McCarter's Anchor Bible Commentary on 2 Samuel.

                    Antedeliuvian. <g>

                    >In his commentary on 2 Sam. 15 he cites alternative readings in the LXX

                    From the Hexpla? If it's pre-Titus, Vespasian, I'd Love to
                    know, for I don't like where deconstructionism is taking me.

                    >and in 4QSam -a-c. According to McCarter 4QSam-c contains 2 Sam. 14-15.
                    >4QSam-a contains parts of much of 1 and 2 Sam. McCarter's feeling is that
                    >the scrolls were close to the LXX originally, and therefore contained all
                    >that that manuscript has.
                    >Liz Fried

                    Here's what Wise, Abegg and Cook (1996) index
                    From 1 Sam
                    3:14-17 4Q160 1 1-7 p. 208 WAC
                    8:6 4Q389 4 355
                    16:1-13 11Q5 28:3-11 448
                    19:22 4Q522 1 i 13 422

                    From 2 Sam
                    7:10-14a 4Q174 2::19-3:2 227
                    7:11b 4Q174 3:7 227
                    7:11C-14a 4Q174 3:10-11 227

                    Look at p. 227 for context.

                    How does McCarter make the judgment about it matching LXX
                    unless his LXX text is from before Pompey? Otherwise LXX
                    is copying Qumran.

                    See why I said "before the flood"? <g>

                    Regards,

                    Tom Simms
                  • Tom Simms
                    ... Let me quote from an earlier post of mine to the List: Here s what Wise, Abegg and Cook (1996) index From 1 Sam 3:14-17 4Q160 1 1-7 p. 208 WAC 8:6
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 30, 2000
                      On Tue, 30 May 2000 17:30:18 -0500, jgibson000@... writes:
                      >
                      >In response to my inquiry regarding whether Tom Simms was saying
                      >And I suggest that you look at _The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_ " ed. M.
                      >Abegg, P. Flint, and E. Ulrich along with the latest edition of Geza
                      >Vermes' _An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls_ where it is
                      >independently noted that that we have 4 MSS of Samuel. 1 from cave 1
                      >and 3 from cave 4. 2 Sam 15-17 is found in 4QSam(c). (also 4qsam(a).
                      >True, the MSS break off and contain only v.23 of chap 17 and chap 16
                      >is fragmentary, but this seems to be due to the vicissitudes of
                      >preservation and NOT to the fact that Samuel was not known and used at
                      >Qumran (let alone anywhere else) as you seem to be claiming.

                      Let me quote from an earlier post of mine to the List:

                      Here's what Wise, Abegg and Cook (1996) index
                      From 1 Sam
                      3:14-17 4Q160 1 1-7 p. 208 WAC
                      8:6 4Q389 4 355
                      16:1-13 11Q5 28:3-11 448
                      19:22 4Q522 1 i 13 422

                      From 2 Sam
                      7:10-14a 4Q174 2::19-3:2 227
                      7:11b 4Q174 3:7 227
                      7:11C-14a 4Q174 3:10-11 227

                      Look at p. 227 for context.

                      Doesn't that look as the encyclopedia?

                      Some serious Qumranites advised me that Wise, Abegg and Cook gave
                      the whole ball of wax, as you can see above. Until that advice
                      and what I note below, I see contra yours following, having found
                      it lacked rigor.

                      >It seems to me that your appeal to WAC for your contention (and the
                      >conclusion you draw from it regarding Ted's thesis) is faulty because
                      >you assume that WAC are intent to do something that they never claimed
                      >they were doing, namely listing all of the **biblical** manuscripts
                      >found at Qumran. The fact that the manuscripts of Samuel are not, or
                      >are only incompletely, indexed in their texts is NOT, therefore, due
                      >to the fact that no MSS of Samuel were found at Qumran, but that it
                      >was never WACs' intention to list all of, let alone discuss, the
                      >specifically BIblical finds.

                      See above. Do you follow the post 70 CE deposit date too?
                      ..

                      Let me go back to when I viewed their work as you do. My change came from
                      the tenor of a post that Abegg sent me about two years ago when I wrote him
                      about the Introduction to the volume where he says just about contra the
                      view you take. He didn't deny his own work. Then I made my inquiries of a
                      number of Orionites. Pursuing that view, it soon became clear the C-14
                      testing was being wrongly interpreted. The result was a Qumran deposit
                      circa the arrival of Pompey.

                      >Yours,
                      >
                      >Jeffrey Gibson
                      >--
                      >Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      >7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                      >Chicago, Illinois 60626
                      >e-mail jgibson000@...
                      > jgibson000@...


                      Regards,

                      Tom Simms
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.