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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Markan Fabrications

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    ... Thankyou very much for this and other posts in the thread, which I am now beginning to get a chance to look at. I emerge very briefly from unavoidable
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      On 1 Jun 00, at 16:42, Ted Weeden wrote:

      > This early Christian
      > interest in the presentation of Jesus as a miracle worker stands in marked
      > contrast to the Q Gospel and the Gospel of Thomas which are concerned
      > solely with the profile of Jesus as the voice of divine wisdom and show
      > virtually no interest in Jesus as a miracle worker- the story of the
      > healing of the centurion's son in Q representing the one exception.

      Thankyou very much for this and other posts in the thread, which I
      am now beginning to get a chance to look at. I emerge very briefly
      from unavoidable lurker status to comment on the above paragraph.
      I agree with you about the Gospel of Thomas, but disagree about
      Q. Q does not have "virtually no interest in Jesus as a miracle
      worker". On the contrary, it repeatedly characterises his ministry
      as a miracle-working one. You rightly mention the Centurion's
      Boy, but note also:

      Q 7.18-23: Jesus is asked if he is "the coming one" and replies by
      means of a group of healings following the pattern of Isa. 35 & 61.
      This is at the culmination of several chapters of Q material at the
      outset of which was John's prophecy of "the coming one". And
      now "the coming one" is identified as a miracle worker. When it
      comes to Jesus' identity, miracle working is clearly key.

      Q 10.9: disciples are exhorted to "heal the sick" and proclaim the
      kingdom.

      Q 10.13: Jesus issues woes on Chorazin & Bethsaida because of
      their responses not to his words but to his miracles: "if the mighty
      works done in you had been done in . . ."

      Q 11.14: Jesus casts out a demon

      Q 11.15-23: Beelzebub Controversy, focusing on Jesus' exorcisms
      and featuring the most blatant link in the Synoptic tradition
      between healing & the coming of the kingdom, 11.20: "if I by the
      finger of God cast out demons, then be sure that the kingdom of
      God has come upon you".

      I submit, therefore, that Q is not only interested in Jesus' miracles
      but also sees them as one of the things that defines his identity
      (as "coming one"), proclamation (of the kingdom of God) and
      mission (the disciples).

      (I should add as footnote that I do not at the moment subscribe to
      the Q hypothesis, but like nevertheless to attempt to understand it
      in the hope that some day I might be convinced.)

      Mark

      ---------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology
      University of Birmingham Fax.: +44 (0)121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT Tel.: +44 (0)121 414 7512

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      Homepage
      http://www.ntgateway.com
      The New Testament Gateway
    • Ted Weeden
      ... marked ... My response: You are correct, Mark, in drawing attention to the Q references to miracle working of Jesus. I wrote in haste at that point. I
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark Goodacre wrote:

        > On 1 Jun 00, at 16:42, Ted Weeden wrote:
        >
        > > This early Christian
        > > interest in the presentation of Jesus as a miracle worker stands in
        marked
        > > contrast to the Q Gospel and the Gospel of Thomas which are concerned
        > > solely with the profile of Jesus as the voice of divine wisdom and show
        > > virtually no interest in Jesus as a miracle worker- the story of the
        > > healing of the centurion's son in Q representing the one exception.
        >
        > Thankyou very much for this and other posts in the thread, which I
        > am now beginning to get a chance to look at. I emerge very briefly
        > from unavoidable lurker status to comment on the above paragraph.
        > I agree with you about the Gospel of Thomas, but disagree about
        > Q. Q does not have "virtually no interest in Jesus as a miracle
        > worker". On the contrary, it repeatedly characterises his ministry
        > as a miracle-working one. You rightly mention the Centurion's
        > Boy, but note also:
        >
        > Q 7.18-23: Jesus is asked if he is "the coming one" and replies by
        > means of a group of healings following the pattern of Isa. 35 & 61.
        > This is at the culmination of several chapters of Q material at the
        > outset of which was John's prophecy of "the coming one". And
        > now "the coming one" is identified as a miracle worker. When it
        > comes to Jesus' identity, miracle working is clearly key.
        >
        > Q 10.9: disciples are exhorted to "heal the sick" and proclaim the
        > kingdom.
        >
        > Q 10.13: Jesus issues woes on Chorazin & Bethsaida because of
        > their responses not to his words but to his miracles: "if the mighty
        > works done in you had been done in . . ."
        >
        > Q 11.14: Jesus casts out a demon
        >
        > Q 11.15-23: Beelzebub Controversy, focusing on Jesus' exorcisms
        > and featuring the most blatant link in the Synoptic tradition
        > between healing & the coming of the kingdom, 11.20: "if I by the
        > finger of God cast out demons, then be sure that the kingdom of
        > God has come upon you".
        >
        > I submit, therefore, that Q is not only interested in Jesus' miracles
        > but also sees them as one of the things that defines his identity
        > (as "coming one"), proclamation (of the kingdom of God) and
        > mission (the disciples).
        >
        > (I should add as footnote that I do not at the moment subscribe to
        > the Q hypothesis, but like nevertheless to attempt to understand it
        > in the hope that some day I might be convinced.)

        My response:

        You are correct, Mark, in drawing attention to the Q references to miracle
        working of Jesus. I wrote in haste at that point. I meant to say that Q
        does not have an interest in narrating miracle stories, with the exception
        of story of the healing of the centurion's son, in contrast to those early
        Christians who told miracle stories as a way of presenting Jesus as a divine
        man.

        Thank you for the correction.

        Ted
      • Jeff Peterson
        ... Nils Dahl argued in his seminal essay The Crucified Messiah that the placard The King of the Jews above Jesus cross -- a sufficiently embarrassing
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          > Ted Weeden wrote:

          > Let me put it differently. I have not seen any convincing evidence
          > that Jesus linked himself with the aspirations of Jewish messianism.
          > Nor have I found any convincing evidence that the early church linked
          > Jesus with Jewish political messianism during his earthly life. The
          > church did link Jesus with messianism following his death and thus
          > called him "Christ" or "the Christ" with respect to his
          > resurrection/exaltation: Paul, among others.

          Nils Dahl argued in his seminal essay "The Crucified Messiah" that the
          placard "The King of the Jews" above Jesus' cross -- a sufficiently
          embarrassing detail that we can be confident the early church didn't
          invent it -- indicates that one significant interpretation of Jesus'
          ministry by his contemporaries was messianic. Unless his death was a
          sheer misunderstanding (as Mack and others have suggested), this would
          suggest that he in some way associated himself with the messianic hopes
          of Israel. The participation of Jesus' most prominent disciple Peter in
          a mission proclaiming him as Messiah would make plausible a degree of
          continuity between proclaimer and proclaimed on this point, wouldn't it?

          Jeff Peterson
          Institute for Christian Studies
          Austin, TX
        • Robert M Schacht
          On Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:29:24 -0400 David C. Hindley ... (Many paragraphs of quotes deleted) ... David, I am a bit puzzled here about why you have quoted at
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 3, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sat, 3 Jun 2000 16:29:24 -0400 "David C. Hindley"
            <dhindley@...> writes:
            > Ted,
            >
            > Last night I spent a little time cutting, pasting and pruning your
            > recent responses to Richard Anderson, Ron Price and myself, in order
            > to try to understand what kind of christology you think the
            > opponents
            > of the author of Mark had.
            >

            (Many paragraphs of quotes deleted)

            > My response:
            >
            > While I have not read Georgi (his book is not in stock at either
            > Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or at the libraries I haunt) I have generally
            > not found convincing those studies which identify a high degree of
            > Hellenization in the ideas held by or about the person of Jesus in the
            > letters of Paul or in the Gospels.

            David,
            I am a bit puzzled here about why you have quoted at such great length,
            and then commented on only one thing, for which the first few sentences
            of quotes would have been quite sufficient. Or am I missing something?

            >I am also hesitant to accept the
            > proposals of Crossan and others who see Galilee as a place where
            > Jewish residents borrowed freely from Hellenistic and Roman culture
            > and practices.

            Why?

            > My reading of Josephus and the few other
            > contemporaneous sources available makes me believe that it was much
            > more likely the original followers of Jesus had a political messianic
            > vision of him than a mystical one.

            What evidence do you find in Josephus for that? Or, what other
            contemporaneous sources are you thinking of?

            >
            > In my opinion, they have overstepped themselves in their use of
            > cross-cultural anthropology. I do not object to using it to produce an
            > explanation that incorporates the known evidence (after all, that is
            > "history"), but I do have problems with using it to generate covering
            > laws which are in turn used to reconstruct "history" that is otherwise
            > not attested, especially when these reconstructions are treated the
            > same as the former category of explanation.

            Can you cite any "covering law" that Crossan has proposed in this regard?
            I don't recall any. What do you mean by "overstepping"? I, too, have some
            considerations about how Crossan used cross-cultural anthropology, but I
            wouldn't call it "overstepping", and I am very glad of his attempt to
            include it in his attempts at triangulation of data. Besides, I'm not
            sure your "otherwise not attested" charge is fair, given Chapter 12 of
            BOC. Just what about his construction is that you find unconvincing?
            Please provide some concrete specifics about his reconstruction that you
            disagree with. Or is your disagreement only at the methodological level?

            > However, I will concede that I have yet to fully develop a personal
            position on the
            > subject of the application of anthropology to historical
            reconstruction.

            Well, good! I'm glad to see that you have not completely closed that
            door.

            Bob
          • Richard Anderson
            Robert: David quoted Richard Anderson and Ron Price because he wants to involve us in the discussion or as a compliment of sorts! Richard H. Anderson
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 4, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Robert: David quoted Richard Anderson and Ron Price because he wants to
              involve us in the discussion or as a compliment of sorts!

              Richard H. Anderson
            • Richard Anderson
              What Ted Weeden has to say is provocative but there is a certain tunnel-vision involved. He says that he is not aware of any evidence for the high regard in
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 4, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                What Ted Weeden has to say is provocative but there is a certain
                tunnel-vision involved. He says that he is not aware of any evidence for the
                high regard in which James was held in the Jerusalem community excepting
                GThomas 12/13. What about Josephus? But citing GThomas raises another
                question. GThomas does not presuppose a theology of the cross but proclaims
                the presence of divine wisdom. In 1 Cor., Paul criticizes certain groups of
                people who claimed to possess special wisdom in the name of individual
                followers of Jesus. Whether or not Mark and Luke are followers of Paul, the
                writings bearing their names certainly have been influenced by what each
                understood to the message of Paul.

                Are the (Weedon) opponents in Mark, persons who claimed to possess secret
                special wisdom? Are we to understand the GMark as a ridicule of those who
                claim to have secret wisdom?

                Richard H. Anderson
                http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.