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

Re: Sonship

Expand Messages
  • Thomas A. Kopecek
    ... Son if God ... and ... appended ... response to ... Couldn t they have started by claiming that Jesus became Lord and Christ at his resurrection (Acts
    Message 1 of 27 , Nov 16, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@h...> wrote:

      >
      > Well, the Jewish "originals" in Jerusalem believed Jesus became
      "Son
      if God"
      > at his Baptism. Paul moved it to his crucifixion, Luke to his birth
      and
      > GJohn to
      > the beginning of time. I suspect that the antiphonal hymn that was
      appended
      > to
      > John as the prologue (sometime in the 2nd century) was a credal
      response to
      > them thar heretic Ebionites.

      Couldn't they have started by claiming that Jesus "became" Lord and
      Christ at his resurrection (Acts 2) and even Son then (if the first
      few verses of Romans are pre-Pauline, reflected then in the sermon
      attributed to Paul in Acts 13 and also the western or D ms of Luke)?

      Tom Kopecek
      I'm aware that in later Ebionite tradition it was the baptism that w
    • Thomas A. Kopecek
      wrote in response to Jack Kilmon ... became ... birth ... that was ... credal ... Lord and ... sermon ... Luke)? Let me annotate myself, in
      Message 2 of 27 , Nov 17, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        <kopecekt@c...> wrote in response to "Jack Kilmon"

        > > Well, the Jewish "originals" in Jerusalem believed Jesus
        became
        > "Son
        > if God"
        > > at his Baptism. Paul moved it to his crucifixion, Luke to his
        birth
        > and
        > > GJohn to
        > > the beginning of time. I suspect that the antiphonal hymn
        that was
        > appended
        > > to
        > > John as the prologue (sometime in the 2nd century) was a
        credal
        > response to
        > > them thar heretic Ebionites.
        >
        > Couldn't they have started by claiming that Jesus "became"
        Lord and
        > Christ at his resurrection (Acts 2) and even Son then (if the first
        > few verses of Romans are pre-Pauline, reflected then in the
        sermon
        > attributed to Paul in Acts 13 and also the western or D ms of
        Luke)?

        Let me annotate myself, in part because the new software my
        college just installed is still giving me trouble, and I saw that my
        message from yesterday was cut off.

        I am obviously willing to entertain the possibility that the
        speeches in Acts include some ancient material that may go
        back to the earliest stages of the Jesus movement, even to
        Jack's Jewish "originals" in Jerusalem. Acts 2:36 and 3:19-21
        may be at the very earliest stage, with Jesus "becoming" Lord
        and Christ at his resurrection and then being expected to act as
        Messiah when he returns to "restore" all things--the restoration
        of a Jewish or even Davidic kingdom? Given that Psalm 2 is a
        "coronation" psalm, it perhaps wasn't much of a stretch to
        interchange Psalm 2:7's Son of God with Messiah, especially in
        light of 2 Samuel 7:12-16. That's what may well have happened
        in the pre-Pauline Romans 1:3-4, which is reflected in Acts
        13:33. Apparently Paul expected the Roman church not to be
        surprised by Romans 1:3-4, and it is pretty clear from Romans
        7:1 (and chapters 14-15) that there were Jewish Christians in
        the Roman church in the 50s: was Paul bouncing off of an old
        Jerusalem church view of Jesus as God's Messiah and Son of
        God, one who had become so at his resurrection?

        To turn to what I think may be a later Jewish Christian tradition of
        associating both Messiahship and Son of Godhood with Jesus'
        baptism (compare Acts 10:37-38), it is interesting that the D ms
        of Luke employs Psalm 2:7 at Jesus' baptism, just as does the
        Gospel of the Ebionites (quoted by Epiphanius at the end of the
        fourth century). What is fascinating about this is that Justin Martyr
        (someplace around Dialogus cum Tryphone 100) quotes the
        Lucan Psalm 2:7 version of the heavenly voice at Jesus' baptism
        in his "Memoirs of the Apostles," as do Clement of Alexandria,
        Origen, and Augustine. Whatever the broader NT manuscript
        tradition, there was a preservation of the use of Psalm 2:7 at
        Jesus' baptism among some of the Catholic Fathers, not just
        among the Ebionites.

        Tom Kopecek
      • Sakari H�kkinen
        Having also returned from the SBL meeting I saw some interesting issues on the list. 1) ... alone was the son ... correct? Or is it ... To be accurate: there
        Message 3 of 27 , Nov 23, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Having also returned from the SBL meeting I saw some
          interesting issues on the list.

          1)
          > From: "Robert M. Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
          > Subject: Sonship
          >
          > GJohn alone of the canonical gospels asserts that Jesus
          alone was the son
          > of God (John 1:18).
          >
          > First question: is this common understanding of John 1:18
          correct? Or is it
          > based on a misunderstanding of the Greek text?

          To be accurate: there are variations in the manuscript
          tradition. Some of the manuscripts in John 1,18 read [O]
          MONOGENHS QEOS (the only-begotten God), as some of them read
          [O] MONOGENHS hUIOS (the only-begotten Son). Nestle-Aland
          (27th ed.) gives preference to the first mentioned. If
          original, this reading is really a lectio difficilior - it
          doesn't fit to the first part of the clause: "No one has
          ever seen God: the only-begotten God that exists by the
          Father has made him known." This reading might have been the
          reason to correct the original text so that the word QEOS in
          the latter part of the clause was replaced by hUIOS. If this
          is so, what do we have to think of the original text?

          > I have long thought that, if stated correctly, this must
          be in response to
          > a claim of sonship that the author of GJohn took exception
          to.
          By the author of GJohn, do you mean the final redastor(s) of
          the canonical text or someone else? This is important to
          know before exploring any further.

          > 1. James, "The brother of the Lord". However, I cannot
          recall any instance
          > of his claiming such a title, or of such a title being
          applied to him by
          > someone else.

          Nor is James opposed to in GJohn in any remarkable way, so
          he seems not to be the likely implied opponent here.

          > 2. Paul. Long before GJohn was written, Paul had already
          written about the
          > faithful as children of God (Galatians 3:26; 4:6-7; cf.
          Romans 8:29; 9:8).
          > But as with James, I can't recall any instance of Paul
          laying claim to his
          > own Sonship, nor of anyone else attributing it to him.

          The same fits here as above: Where is Paul opposed to in
          GJohn? I find it more probable that the clause, whoever
          wrote it, was not directed against any individuals, hardly
          not even against any sectarian group. Although it might have
          at some earlier time been a reaction to some claims, it is
          that no more in GJohn, where it simply reflects the worship
          of Jesus as the God. I mean that before the hymn became a
          part of the 4thG, the passage 1,18 quite likely was a
          reaction to some people, who claimed to have seen the God.
          But even then the point was not in Jesus divinity, but in
          the impossibility to see God.

          > * Paulinist Christians, who considered themselves Sons of
          God on the basis
          > of Galatians, etc.;

          I am not a specialist on the 4thG, but somehow I find it odd
          if Paulinist Christians were opposed in this Gospel.

          > * The Desposynoi, who regarded themselves as relatives of
          Jesus;

          Actually the Desposynoi regarded themselves as descendants
          of king David, and claimed for aristocracy for their
          movement. It is probable that they were not even
          "Christians".

          > So this leads me to another question:
          > Given the underlying Greek, is there a significant
          difference between being
          > "children of God" and being a "son of God"? Are these
          qualitatively
          > different? Or does one imply the other? Is there an
          important difference in
          > this regard between being *adopted* as sons (Galatians
          4:5-7) and being a
          > son in some other sense?

          I think the difference is cultural. When Judaic authors used
          the term "son of God", it referred always to a status that
          Israel or some remarkabe representants of it had as children
          of God. The idea of childhood was symbolic and referred to
          the close relationship of Jahwe and his people. But when
          Gentile authors use the term, they allude implicitly to the
          Greek stories where gods have physical sons and daughters.
          In my opinion the passage in question, although textually
          obscure, belongs to the latter cultural context and the
          meaning of the MONOGENHS is to deny the existence of other
          sons of Gods, i.e. other divine mediators who reveal the sec
          rets of the divine world to people on the earth.

          2
          > From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
          > Subject: Re: Sonship

          > Well, the Jewish "originals" in Jerusalem believed Jesus
          became "Son if God"
          > at his Baptism. Paul moved it to his crucifixion, Luke to
          his birth and
          > GJohn to
          > the beginning of time. I suspect that the antiphonal hymn
          that was appended
          > to
          > John as the prologue (sometime in the 2nd century) was a
          credal response to
          > them thar heretic Ebionites.

          Could you explain this a bit further? I wrote my
          dissertation on Ebionites, but I do not know what you mean
          here. Was the whole hymn a credal response to Ebionites? How
          do you date it? How do you date the Ebionites, of whom the
          earlies preserved mentions come from the late second
          century?

          3
          Re: Sonship
          From: "Thomas A. Kopecek" <kopecekt@...>

          You message was of interest to me also. Like you I believe
          that there are some ancient material in Acts that may go
          back to the earliest stages of the Jesus movement.

          What comes to the quotation of Ps 2,7 in the story of Jesus'
          baptism, I am inclined to believe that the original written
          version of the story had a combination of two OT passages,
          Ps 2,7 and Is 42,1, for following reasons:
          1) I consider Mark's version of the story as the oldest
          preserved version of the story of Jesus' baptism. Mark's
          manuscripts have no alternate readings in the quotation.
          2) The Gospel used by the Ebionites is a harmonized Gospel.
          Its editor(s) has changed the text in several passages in
          order to fit it better to his own community. Replacing the
          combined quotation by a plain verse of Ps 2,7 is fully
          understandable when the Gospel was used by Ebionites, since
          it fits perfectly to their christology. By this I am not
          claiming that the editor was an Ebionite. On the contrary,
          it seems to me that the Ebionites used a Gospel that was
          used also be other communities.
          We find the same reading of the story with quotation of Ps
          2,7 and not the combined one from the texts written by
          Justin, Clement Alexandrian, Methodius, Hilary of Poitiers
          and Augustin (and, of course, Epiphanius). It is also the
          reading of the Bezae -manuscript of Luke (D) and several old
          Latin translations. None of the Church Fathers regard it as
          a corruption. So, the text of Luke had two versions. Which
          one of them was original in Luke is another question. The
          first version is that of Mark 1,11.
          At SBL meeting this year Jeffrey A. Gibbs presented a paper
          on the Baptism of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel. According to
          him, Matthew alluded to Jer 31,20 in stead of Ps 2,7 and Is
          42,1. It seems that there was much fluidity when searching
          the connections of this story to the Scriptures.


          Sakari Hakkinen, PhD
          University of Helsinki
          Department of Biblical Studies
          sakari.hakkinen@...
          http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/henkilo/henkilo.html
        • Thomas A. Kopecek
          Hi Sakari: I hope you are well. Tom In crosstalk2@egroups.com, Sakari Häkkinen ... I m not sure there is a problem with understanding
          Message 4 of 27 , Nov 23, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Sakari: I hope you are well. Tom

            In crosstalk2@egroups.com, "Sakari Häkkinen" <sakari.hakkinen@s...>
            wrote in response to Bob Schacht:

            > > First question: is this common understanding of John 1:18
            > >correct? Or is it
            > > based on a misunderstanding of the Greek text?
            >
            > To be accurate: there are variations in the manuscript
            > tradition. Some of the manuscripts in John 1,18 read [O]
            > MONOGENHS QEOS (the only-begotten God), as some of them read
            > [O] MONOGENHS hUIOS (the only-begotten Son). Nestle-Aland
            > (27th ed.) gives preference to the first mentioned. If
            > original, this reading is really a lectio difficilior - it
            > doesn't fit to the first part of the clause: "No one has
            > ever seen God: the only-begotten God that exists by the
            > Father has made him known." This reading might have been the
            > reason to correct the original text so that the word QEOS in
            > the latter part of the clause was replaced by hUIOS. If this
            > is so, what do we have to think of the original text?

            I'm not sure there is a problem with understanding the text the way
            Nestle-Aland print it in their 27th ed IF one decides to follow
            Origen's lead in his Commentary on John. Rather than going first to
            modern scholars to sort out the meaning of ancient Greek Christian
            texts, it seems to me to be a good idea to check out how those ancient
            Christians whose native language was ancient Greek understood NT
            passages.

            Origen makes a distinction in the prologue to the 4G between
            God-with-the-article and God-without-the-article. Who knows? Maybe
            this was what the original author of the prologue meant. It makes
            sense to me. I'm not, of course, suggesting that the person
            responsible for the original version in Greek of the prologue would
            agree with everything Origen says, but perhaps he might agree with
            Origen's linguistic distinction. Below is the relevant passage from
            Origen's commentary. For convenience's sake I reproduce the text from
            the English of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

            "We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does
            not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the
            niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and
            in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name
            of God he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name
            of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when
            the Logos is named God. Does the same difference which we observe
            between God with the article and God without it prevail also between
            the Logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the
            God who is over all is God with the article, not without it, so "the
            Logos" is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every
            reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like
            the former called par excellence The Logos. Now there are many who are
            sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great
            perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and
            their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.
            Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides
            that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all
            but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a
            separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall
            outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each
            other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very
            God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Savior says in His prayer
            to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; "but that
            all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity,
            and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God
            (without article). [There's a bit of Platonism here that probably
            could not have been intended by the author of the prologue.] And thus
            the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and
            to attract to Himself divinity,is a being of more exalted rank than
            the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written,
            "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was
            by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew
            from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He
            communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God,
            then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods,
            images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image,
            again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the
            beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not
            possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not
            continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining
            always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

            Tom
            ____
            Thomas A. Kopecek
            Professor of Religio
          • Bob Schacht
            ... Tom and Sakari, Thanks much for this interesting exchange. It is exactly the kind of dialogue I was hoping for. ... My question is, who are the they to
            Message 5 of 27 , Nov 23, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              At 12:44 AM 11/24/00 +0000, Thomas A. Kopecek wrote:
              >In crosstalk2@egroups.com, "Sakari Häkkinen" <sakari.hakkinen@s...>
              >wrote in response to Bob Schacht:
              >
              > > > First question: is this common understanding of John 1:18
              > > >correct? Or is it based on a misunderstanding of the Greek text?
              > >
              > > To be accurate: there are variations in the manuscript
              > > tradition. Some of the manuscripts in John 1,18 read [O]
              > > MONOGENHS QEOS (the only-begotten God), as some of them read
              > > [O] MONOGENHS hUIOS (the only-begotten Son). Nestle-Aland
              > > (27th ed.) gives preference to the first mentioned. If
              > > original, this reading is really a lectio difficilior - it
              > > doesn't fit to the first part of the clause: "No one has
              > > ever seen God: the only-begotten God that exists by the
              > > Father has made him known." This reading might have been the
              > > reason to correct the original text so that the word QEOS in
              > > the latter part of the clause was replaced by hUIOS. If this
              > > is so, what do we have to think of the original text?
              >
              >I'm not sure there is a problem with understanding the text the way
              >Nestle-Aland print it in their 27th ed IF one decides to follow
              >Origen's lead in his Commentary on John. Rather than going first to
              >modern scholars to sort out the meaning of ancient Greek Christian
              >texts, it seems to me to be a good idea to check out how those ancient
              >Christians whose native language was ancient Greek understood NT
              >passages.

              Tom and Sakari,
              Thanks much for this interesting exchange. It is exactly the kind of
              dialogue I was hoping for.
              Tom, thanks for the Origen quote. One question about it:


              >Origen makes a distinction in the prologue to the 4G between
              >God-with-the-article and God-without-the-article. Who knows? Maybe
              >this was what the original author of the prologue meant. It makes
              >sense to me. I'm not, of course, suggesting that the person
              >responsible for the original version in Greek of the prologue would
              >agree with everything Origen says, but perhaps he might agree with
              >Origen's linguistic distinction. Below is the relevant passage from
              >Origen's commentary. For convenience's sake I reproduce the text from
              >the English of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
              >
              >"We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does
              >not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the
              >niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and
              >in some he omits it. ... Now there are many who are
              >sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great
              >perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and
              >their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.
              >Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides
              >that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all
              >but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a
              >separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall
              >outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each
              >other. To such persons we have to say ...

              My question is, who are the "they" to whom Origen refers? Are they the same
              persons to whom the author of the Prologue addressed John 1:18?

              Thanks,
              Bob


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Bob Schacht
              ... I ll defer to Tom Kopecek s discussion of this, following Origen. ... I m not sure why this is important to you. I don t want to get into the issue of when
              Message 6 of 27 , Nov 23, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                At 01:24 PM 11/23/00 +0200, Sakari Hakkinen wrote:
                >Having also returned from the SBL meeting I saw some
                >interesting issues on the list.
                >
                >1)
                > > From: "Robert M. Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
                > > Subject: Sonship
                > >
                > > GJohn alone of the canonical gospels asserts that Jesus alone was the
                > > son of God (John 1:18).
                > >
                > > First question: is this common understanding of John 1:18 correct? Or is
                > > it based on a misunderstanding of the Greek text?
                >
                >To be accurate: there are variations in the manuscript
                >tradition. Some of the manuscripts in John 1,18 read [O]
                >MONOGENHS QEOS (the only-begotten God), as some of them read
                >[O] MONOGENHS hUIOS (the only-begotten Son). Nestle-Aland
                >(27th ed.) gives preference to the first mentioned. If
                >original, this reading is really a lectio difficilior - it
                >doesn't fit to the first part of the clause: "No one has
                >ever seen God: the only-begotten God that exists by the
                >Father has made him known." This reading might have been the
                >reason to correct the original text so that the word QEOS in
                >the latter part of the clause was replaced by hUIOS. If this
                >is so, what do we have to think of the original text?

                I'll defer to Tom Kopecek's discussion of this, following Origen.

                > > I have long thought that, if stated correctly, this must
                >be in response to
                > > a claim of sonship that the author of GJohn took exception
                >to.
                >By the author of GJohn, do you mean the final redastor(s) of
                >the canonical text or someone else? This is important to
                >know before exploring any further.

                I'm not sure why this is important to you. I don't want to get into the
                issue of when the Prologue was added to the Gospel, but I'd suppose it was
                either the author of the Prologue, or the final redactor. At any rate, I am
                supposing that either way, John 1:18 was written after the Synoptic Gospels
                had been written.

                >... I mean that before the hymn became a
                >part of the 4thG, the passage 1,18 quite likely was a
                >reaction to some people, who claimed to have seen the God.

                But who were those people?

                >But even then the point was not in Jesus divinity, but in
                >the impossibility to see God.
                >
                >...> So this leads me to another question:
                > > Given the underlying Greek, is there a significant
                >difference between being
                > > "children of God" and being a "son of God"? Are these
                >qualitatively
                > > different? Or does one imply the other? Is there an
                >important difference in
                > > this regard between being *adopted* as sons (Galatians
                >4:5-7) and being a
                > > son in some other sense?
                >
                >I think the difference is cultural. When Judaic authors used
                >the term "son of God", it referred always to a status that
                >Israel or some remarkabe representants of it had as children
                >of God. The idea of childhood was symbolic and referred to
                >the close relationship of Jahwe and his people. But when
                >Gentile authors use the term, they allude implicitly to the
                >Greek stories where gods have physical sons and daughters.
                >In my opinion the passage in question, although textually
                >obscure, belongs to the latter cultural context and the
                >meaning of the MONOGENHS is to deny the existence of other
                >sons of Gods, i.e. other divine mediators who reveal the sec
                >rets of the divine world to people on the earth.

                So, then, do you think that 1:18 was written with reference to Hellenists
                who were predisposed to the idea of a multiplicity of divine mediators,
                rather than a sectarian dispute, as suggested by Kopecek's Origen quote?

                Thanks for your other interesting comments to Jack and Tom, as well.

                Bob


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Sakari H�kkinen
                Tom K: Thank you for quoting the Commentary of John by Origen. It was interesting, though I am not yet sure that Origen did find the original meaning of the
                Message 7 of 27 , Nov 24, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tom K:
                  Thank you for quoting the Commentary of John by Origen. It
                  was interesting, though I am not yet sure that Origen did
                  find the original meaning of the text. The quote makes
                  clear, however, that 1) Origen had the text which does not
                  in 1,18 read hUIOS, but QEOS and 2) the text in front of him
                  was somewhat difficult to explain just because there was the
                  QEOS which could easily be mixed with hO QEOS. That is the
                  reason he had to give this rather lengthy explanation of the
                  niceties of Greek language to his Greek readers. However, if
                  you have a look at the whole Prologue, Origen's
                  argumentation does not work. Of course Origen had not
                  Nestle-Aland's 27th edition at hand, but there are not
                  enough evidence in manuscript tradition that the word God
                  when meaning God was written with definite article and when
                  meaning Jesus/Logos was written without article. What I
                  still find difficult here is the use of QEOS instead of more
                  clear hUIOS. If the author wanted to say Son, just why
                  didn't he use the word? Now, in the Prologue the word hUIOS
                  is never mentioned (other than in the GJohn elsewhere!). For
                  some reasons the author does not introduce Jesus as the Son
                  of God. Further, 1,18 is the end of the prologue. In the
                  beginning of the Prologue Jesus is referred to as hO LOGOS
                  and QEOS without article. So, it might be that the author
                  has used MONOGENHS QEOS without article in 1,18 for
                  aesthetic reasons: it is a suitable end for the Prologue.
                  (BTW, if the Prologue was not at first a part of 4thG, how
                  do we know it was a Prologue? What was its genre? Why was it
                  written?)

                  Bob:
                  > > > I have long thought that, if stated correctly, this
                  must
                  > >be in response to
                  > > > a claim of sonship that the author of GJohn took
                  exception
                  > >to.
                  > >By the author of GJohn, do you mean the final redactor(s)
                  of
                  > >the canonical text or someone else? This is important to
                  > >know before exploring any further.
                  >
                  > I'm not sure why this is important to you. I don't want to
                  get into the
                  > issue of when the Prologue was added to the Gospel, but
                  I'd suppose it was
                  > either the author of the Prologue, or the final redactor.
                  At any rate, I am
                  > supposing that either way, John 1:18 was written after the
                  Synoptic Gospels
                  > had been written.

                  If you want to know who is/are the imminent opponent(s),
                  you'd better know whether they were opponents of the
                  community of 4th Gospel or some earlier stage of tradition.
                  I am asking for the Sitz im Leben of the "Prologue".

                  > >... I mean that before the hymn became a
                  > >part of the 4thG, the passage 1,18 quite likely was a
                  > >reaction to some people, who claimed to have seen the
                  God.
                  >
                  > But who were those people?

                  I would rather regard them as some Greeks than Ebionites.

                  > So, then, do you think that 1:18 was written with
                  reference to Hellenists
                  > who were predisposed to the idea of a multiplicity of
                  divine mediators,
                  > rather than a sectarian dispute, as suggested by Kopecek's
                  Origen quote?

                  Definitely so. Having sent the message yesterday I started
                  to unpack the stuff I brought from SBL and recognized an
                  article by Adela Yarbro Collins in Harvard Theological
                  Review 93:2, April 2000: "Mark and His Readers: The Son of
                  God among Greeks and Romans". Having now read the article I
                  am even more convinced that John 1,18 opposed rather some
                  Greek ideas than sectarian Jews. Naturally these Greek ideas
                  were not necessarily supported only by outsiders, so you
                  might as well call them sectarians, if you want to.

                  Best wishes,

                  Sakari Hakkinen, PhD
                  University of Helsinki
                  Department of Biblical Studies
                  sakari.hakkinen@...
                  http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/henkilo/henkilo.html
                • Stephen Goranson
                  Aplologies for crossposting, though I think these respond to issues on both lists. Dr. Hakkinen asserted that desponsynoi referred to David relatives and not
                  Message 8 of 27 , Nov 24, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Aplologies for crossposting, though I think these respond to issues on both
                    lists.

                    Dr. Hakkinen asserted that desponsynoi referred to David relatives
                    and not Jesus relatives or both. May I merely note that that is not agreed
                    upon.
                    If I may, a question for Sakkari. You have noted that Christian
                    heresiologists first mention "Ebionites" in the second century. Earlier
                    than Irenaeus, I assume we can agree, are mentions of "Jewish-Christians,"
                    the poor in NT, and the edat ha-evionim. Also, the Greek for "heresy" had
                    not yet taken on a negative sense in the first century; evidently that was
                    probably a second-century (or at least post 70) development (cf Hebrew
                    minut). And G. Strecker's statement (appendix to W. Bauer Orthodoxy and
                    Heresy. 1971, p. 279), "the designation Ebionaioi...probably originated in
                    a concrete [yet unspecified by GS] situation and was not a general
                    label..." mystifies me. Here's my question: Dr. Hakkinen, are you actually
                    affirmatively asserting that Ebionites originated in the second century
                    without continuing the practices and beliefs of some earlier
                    Jesus-followers? If so, what can you say about the when or where or why or
                    how of such second-century proposed origin?

                    I find "excavating Q" a process that seems very tenuous to me. But
                    I admit that I am not up-to-date on that discussion. What I really wish to
                    note is the excellent article by Prof. Kloppenborg in the Fall J. of Jewish
                    Studies, in which he shows that the Jerusalem synagogue inscription is
                    indeed most probably pre 70 in date and refers to a synagogue building, as
                    well as congregation. For my two cents worth, I wish Dr. K would spend more
                    time on such fine studies as this, which deal more with realia. Well done!

                    Previously, I noted that the article by Eric Laupot entirely
                    avoided the excellent discussion by Menahem Stern in Greek and Latin
                    Authors Jews and Juadaism (1980)--a standard work whhich should have been
                    cited. Stern gave references to Origen, Paulus Orosius, and Sulpicius
                    Severus himself (on Hadrian's destruction of Jerusalem) which make Laupot's
                    proposal exceedingly improbable. I am no expert on Sulpicius Severus. But I
                    made a quick tour in the library of several recent works on him--including
                    works more recent than most cited in the article--and found yet more
                    counterindications. E.g., the uncited volume, G. K. van Andel, The
                    Christian Concept of History in Sulpicius Severus (Amsterdam, 1976), with a
                    long discussion on Tacitus.

                    best,
                    Stephen Goranson
                    goranson@...
                  • Thomas A. Kopecek
                    ... from ... from ... does ... the ... and ... and ... besides ... all ... fall ... the same ... I have no idea who was being addressed by the author of the
                    Message 9 of 27 , Nov 24, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@y...> wrote:

                      > Tom, thanks for the Origen quote. One question about it:
                      >
                      >
                      > >Origen makes a distinction in the prologue to the 4G between
                      > >God-with-the-article and God-without-the-article. Who knows? Maybe
                      > >this was what the original author of the prologue meant. It makes
                      > >sense to me. I'm not, of course, suggesting that the person
                      > >responsible for the original version in Greek of the prologue would
                      > >agree with everything Origen says, but perhaps he might agree with
                      > >Origen's linguistic distinction. Below is the relevant passage
                      from
                      > >Origen's commentary. For convenience's sake I reproduce the text
                      from
                      > >the English of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
                      > >
                      > >"We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He
                      does
                      > >not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with
                      the
                      > >niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article,
                      and
                      > >in some he omits it. ... Now there are many who are
                      > >sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great
                      > >perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods,
                      and
                      > >their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.
                      > >Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own
                      besides
                      > >that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God
                      all
                      > >but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a
                      > >separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence
                      fall
                      > >outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each
                      > >other. To such persons we have to say ...
                      >
                      > My question is, who are the "they" to whom Origen refers? Are they
                      the same
                      > persons to whom the author of the Prologue addressed John 1:18?

                      I have no idea who was being addressed by the author of the prologue.
                      How could one determine that? People who burrow around in first
                      century Christianity don't have enough data to do anything besides
                      speculate. It's bad enough in the second and third centuries. One has
                      to wait for the fourth and fifth centuries to have relatively
                      adequate
                      data to answer such questions. That's what keeps so many earning
                      their
                      livelihoods in NT studies: there is always room for another
                      speculation. :)

                      But I think Origen's "they" is tolerably certain. He has in mind
                      so-called Modalistic Monarchians and some sorts of so-called Dynamic
                      Monarchians or Adoptionists. The former simply identified Father and
                      Son and said the difference was only in mode--read "name". The second
                      affirmed that the line between the Father and Son was the
                      creator/creation line, though there was wide disparity between where
                      in the spectrum of creation the "Son" fell, from an angel (see some
                      passages in the Shepherd of Hermas) to an adopted human being (see
                      the
                      followers of Theodotus of Byzantium, Paul of Samosata, etc.).

                      Tom

                      ___
                      Thomas A. Kopecek
                      Professor of Religion
                      Central College, Pella, Iowa 50219
                      kopecekt@...
                    • Thomas A. Kopecek
                      Since we have an Ebionite expert in Sakari Häkkinen, let me (1) pose a couple of questions to him and (2) ask for further clarification re: his take on the
                      Message 10 of 27 , Nov 24, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Since we have an Ebionite expert in Sakari Häkkinen, let me (1)
                        pose a
                        couple of questions to him and (2) ask for further clarification re:
                        his "take" on the "Lord's people" in Julius Africanus.

                        (1a) I'm interested in the claim made both by Irenaeus (perhaps) and
                        Epiphanius (certainly) that the Ebionites did not use wine in their
                        eucharists but rather water. Do you think this tradition is to be
                        trusted? If so, what might be the reason for it? If not, why not? If
                        the Ebionites were really "Jewish" followers of Jesus, why did they
                        abandon wine? Did they somehow become attracted to encratism, and if
                        so, is there any evidence of why? (Might there have been Jewish
                        followers of Jesus already in Rome whom Paul addressed in his
                        "Romans"
                        that did not drink wine in the way they did not eat meat but engaged
                        in vegetarianism? See Romans 14:1-3 and 21.)

                        (1b) Furthermore, I've been revisting the Didache and stumbling--as
                        everyone stumbles--over the odd expression "the holy vine of David"
                        in
                        the Eucharistic liturgy. Like everybody else I have no idea what it
                        means and have trouble with Betz' global interpretation. I first
                        thought maybe "vine" might not mean "grapevine" and that the liquid
                        presupposed might be water and not wine. But the word AMPELOS or vine
                        surely does mean grapevine and not any old vine in nearly all the
                        passages I found using my TLG disk to search the LXX (the branch of
                        the stump/roots of Jesse in LXX Isaiah 11:1 has another Greek word
                        for
                        branch, not AMPELOS).

                        (2) I'm curious about your interpretation of Julius Africanus apud
                        Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiae 1:7. For those not familiar with the
                        passage, Julius is worrying about the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew
                        and Luke. At the end of his passage he writes the following:

                        "But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his
                        great good fortune was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward,
                        by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and
                        Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. These accounts
                        agree also with those of the Greeks. But as there had been kept in
                        the
                        archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of
                        those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the
                        Ammonite and Ruth the Moabites, and to those who were mingled with
                        the
                        Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the
                        lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and
                        since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble
                        extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he
                        might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the
                        public
                        registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes
                        and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae. A few of the
                        careful, however, having obtained private records of their own,
                        either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way
                        from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their
                        noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called
                        Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the
                        Savior. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other
                        parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and
                        from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible. Whether
                        then
                        the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation,
                        according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let
                        this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its
                        support, we have nothing. better or truer to offer. In any case the
                        Gospel states the truth." (NPNF)

                        The third from the last sentence of this quotation concerns Julius'
                        explanation of the different genealogies in Luke and Matthew, not, as
                        far as I can see, the connection of the Desposyni with the family of
                        Jesus. So on what do you base your interpretation in your previous
                        post?

                        Tom

                        ___
                        Thomas A. Kopecek
                        Professor of Religion
                        Central College, Pella, IA 50219
                        kopecekt@...
                      • Sakari H�kkinen
                        ... Desposynoi ... be out of ... does not ... even ... I wonder ... the ... because ... churches, which ... both ... aristocrats ... aspiration for ... Figure,
                        Message 11 of 27 , Nov 26, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Tom Kopecek wrote:

                          > Were the relatives in question actually Christian, then
                          Desposynoi
                          > meaning "belonging to the Lord" as "possessions" would not
                          be out of
                          > the question. Taylor and you rightly point out that Julius
                          does not
                          > specifically say that the relatives were Christians. Yet
                          even
                          > granting
                          > Taylor's argument that the term Desposynoi means "lords,"
                          I wonder
                          > about her central contention, which I'll quote in its
                          entirety:
                          > It would seem likely that they travelled around
                          the
                          > country reciting their Davidic genealogy not
                          because
                          > they wished to claim authority over the
                          churches, which
                          > are not mentioned, but because they vainly (in
                          both
                          > senses of the word) wanted to be considered
                          aristocrats
                          > in Israel: truly this was a high-minded
                          aspiration for
                          > a group of lowly villagers from Galilee. (p. 34)
                          > As E P Sanders has pointed out on p. 86 of Historical
                          Figure, "David
                          > doubtless had tens of thousands of descendants who were
                          alive" at the
                          > time of Jesus, let aside at the time of the Desposynoi.
                          Does it
                          > really
                          > make sense that the relatives of Jesus were claiming
                          aristocratic
                          > background UNLESS they were making some sort of claim for
                          authority
                          > among the followers of Jesus? Where else is it likely that
                          "lowly
                          > villagers" who were among tens of thousands of living
                          descendants of
                          > David could exert some influence as "lords"?

                          You are right at pointing out the importance of Jesus'
                          Davidic roots in some Christian circles. This does not,
                          however, prove that the Desposynoi were Christians. It only
                          supports the view that there were such communities that
                          claimed for aristocracy because of their heritance. Some of
                          them were "Christians", like those responsible for the
                          genealogy of Jesus in Matth. 1, but not necessarily all
                          believed that Jesus was the Davidic king.

                          > Furthermore, do we know that being a physical descendant
                          of David was
                          > that important among non-Christian Jews at large during
                          the Second
                          > Temple period, to say nothing of the period afterward?

                          No, we don't. But we can quite safely assume that it was
                          important. If it was important for some Christian Jews, why
                          not non-Christian Jews? Perhaps not at large, however.

                          > Of course some Jews after 70 looked for the coming of a
                          Davidic Messiah, but that is
                          > a different matter from simple physical descent from
                          David. Indeed,
                          > for that matter, do we know that it was people of Davidic
                          descent who
                          > played the central roles in the 66-74 revolt or in the
                          132-135 revolt
                          > (I'm here deferring to those expert in such matters: *I*
                          don't know)?

                          In my view, in those years, especially before 70 there were
                          dozens of different groups claiming for authority over the
                          temple/Jerusalem/Israel as a whole. We don't know that the
                          people of Davidic descent played central roles, but who has
                          even argued that? The Desposynoi, whoever they might have
                          been, played no central role either geographically or
                          theologically in the second temple period or thereafter.

                          > Among followers of Jesus, on the other hand, because Jesus
                          was
                          > claimed
                          > to be descended from David, it would make sense that
                          Jesus' relatives
                          > might want to claim not only relation to Jesus but also,
                          as Taylor
                          > puts it, 'aristocratic' relation to David. That would give
                          them some
                          > status, wouldn't it? They could be "lords" in the
                          Christian synagogue
                          > if they were lords nowhere else.

                          I am not arguing against the hypothesis that Jesus' kinsmen
                          had a remarkable status in earliest Christianity. I would
                          count on that myself. Davidic roots might have well been
                          useful when there were questions on restoring Israel and
                          discussions on authority in Jesus-movement. I simply do not
                          equate Desposynoi to these Judaic-Christians for the lack of
                          evidence.

                          > In other words, although Julius doesn't specifically say
                          that the
                          > Desposynoi were Christians, isn't it easier to imagine a
                          scenario to
                          > explain Julius' passage if one argues they were than if
                          one argues
                          > they were not?

                          You can imagine it, but it is then imagination and
                          speculation, which cannot be used as a fact in scientific
                          scholarship.

                          > In the last analysis I would prefer what Taylor herself
                          calls "the
                          > general consensus" that Desposynoi means 'belonging to the
                          Lord',
                          > 'belonging to a lord/master', 'the Master's People', or
                          'kinsmen of
                          > the Lord' " (p. 32).

                          As Taylor points out, both the meanings are possible.

                          All the best,

                          Sakari

                          Sakari Hakkinen, PhD
                          University of Helsinki
                          Department of Biblical Studies
                          sakari.hakkinen@...
                          http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/henkilo/henkilo.html
                        • Thomas A. Kopecek
                          ... We are agreed that our evidence disallows us from proving anything in this case. ... Well, because we KNOW Davidic descent was asserted for Jesus in Mt
                          Message 12 of 27 , Nov 26, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, "Sakari Häkkinen"
                            <sakari.hakkinen@s...> wrote:

                            > You are right at pointing out the importance of Jesus'
                            > Davidic roots in some Christian circles. This does not,
                            > however, prove that the Desposynoi were Christians. It only
                            > supports the view that there were such communities that
                            > claimed for aristocracy because of their heritance. Some of
                            > them were "Christians", like those responsible for the
                            > genealogy of Jesus in Matth. 1, but not necessarily all
                            > believed that Jesus was the Davidic king.

                            We are agreed that our evidence disallows us from "proving" anything
                            in this case.

                            >
                            > > Furthermore, do we know that being a physical descendant
                            > of David was
                            > > that important among non-Christian Jews at large during
                            > the Second
                            > > Temple period, to say nothing of the period afterward?
                            >
                            > No, we don't. But we can quite safely assume that it was
                            > important. If it was important for some Christian Jews, why
                            > not non-Christian Jews? Perhaps not at large, however.

                            Well, because we KNOW Davidic descent was asserted for Jesus in Mt
                            and
                            Lk. What evidence do we have of non-Christian Jews playing up Davidic
                            descent for a "founder" and/or family in their branch of Judaism?

                            > In my view, in those years, especially before 70 there were
                            > dozens of different groups claiming for authority over the
                            > temple/Jerusalem/Israel as a whole. We don't know that the
                            > people of Davidic descent played central roles, but who has
                            > even argued that? The Desposynoi, whoever they might have
                            > been, played no central role either geographically or
                            > theologically in the second temple period or thereafter.

                            Of course I agree with this. I was merely pointing to the obvious,
                            that is, only the followers of Jesus (to my knowledge) actually made
                            something religiously out of a particular *historical* personage
                            being
                            a descendant of David. Therefore, it makes sense that the family of
                            Jesus--just BECAUSE he was claimed to be a Davidic Messiah (in some
                            sense at least)--would have a religious reason to play up Davidic
                            descent for themselves. One can ALWAYS be skeptical about this kind
                            of
                            historical argumentation, and since I usually work on topics for
                            which
                            we have far more data, I'm very uncomfortable with the kind of
                            argument I've forwarded.

                            >
                            > I am not arguing against the hypothesis that Jesus' kinsmen
                            > had a remarkable status in earliest Christianity. I would
                            > count on that myself. Davidic roots might have well been
                            > useful when there were questions on restoring Israel and
                            > discussions on authority in Jesus-movement. I simply do not
                            > equate Desposynoi to these Judaic-Christians for the lack of
                            > evidence.

                            I've simply allowed myself to slip into the speculative and
                            imaginative mindset of NT scholars, who make a little bit go one heck
                            of a long way. Look what has happened to a posited document like Q
                            :).
                            I happen to like Goodacre's life without Q, so I'm surely not going
                            to
                            push the speculation I've forwarded. But I DO think that Taylor is
                            being a bit hypercritical.

                            > You can imagine it, but it is then imagination and
                            > speculation, which cannot be used as a fact in scientific
                            > scholarship.

                            Agreed, but then most NT scholarship ain't "scientific," right?

                            It has been good discussing these matters with you, Sakari. BTW, when
                            I get through my teaching for this semester, I'd like to find time to
                            follow up your excellent initial analysis of the food and drink of
                            the
                            Ebionites, because I'm having trouble understanding why persons of
                            Jewish descent might have gone in any sort of encratite direction, as
                            the evidence MAY suggest.

                            And what's happening with your dissertation? Is it going to be
                            published sometime soon? As I recall, you said something about that a
                            couple of years ago.

                            Tom

                            ___
                            Thomas A. Kopecek
                            Professor of Religion
                            Central College, Pella, IA 50219
                            kopecekt@...

                            ___
                          • Sakari H�kkinen
                            Tom K. I have also enjoyed the discussion we have had. It seems to me that we are finally not so far from each other. ... Jesus in Mt ... up Davidic ...
                            Message 13 of 27 , Nov 27, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Tom K.

                              I have also enjoyed the discussion we have had. It seems to
                              me that we are finally not so far from each other.

                              You asked:
                              > Well, because we KNOW Davidic descent was asserted for
                              Jesus in Mt
                              > and
                              > Lk. What evidence do we have of non-Christian Jews playing
                              up Davidic
                              > descent for a "founder" and/or family in their branch of
                              Judaism?

                              Here Ken seems to come to my help. See his message. Thank
                              you, Ken!

                              > Agreed, but then most NT scholarship ain't "scientific,"
                              right?

                              I hope not most. In this kind of list it is quite easy to
                              let imagine flow. I prefer such discussion that builds more
                              on facts than probabilites and possibilities. We do,
                              however, have at least the texts and archeological evidence.

                              > It has been good discussing these matters with you,
                              Sakari. BTW, when
                              > I get through my teaching for this semester, I'd like to
                              find time to
                              > follow up your excellent initial analysis of the food and
                              drink of
                              > the
                              > Ebionites, because I'm having trouble understanding why
                              persons of
                              > Jewish descent might have gone in any sort of encratite
                              direction, as
                              > the evidence MAY suggest.

                              I would like to dig more to these things myself.
                              Pseudo-Clementines offer a good starting point. See for
                              example the figure of Peter as a vegetarian - quite opposite
                              to Acts 10.

                              > And what's happening with your dissertation? Is it going
                              to be
                              > published sometime soon? As I recall, you said something
                              about that a
                              > couple of years ago.

                              I got it published a year ago in Finnish. I would be
                              interested to rewrite (not just translate) it in English,
                              but that seems to be too difficult as I am a vicar, the only
                              pastor in a little parish. So, if someone out there has any
                              possibilities to invite me for a year or so (even half a
                              year could be for help) to do some scholarly work on
                              Ebionites in your university, college, institute or
                              whatever, I would be more than pleased.

                              All the best,

                              Sakari Hakkinen, PhD
                              University of Helsinki
                              Department of Biblical Studies
                              sakari.hakkinen@...
                              http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/henkilo/henkilo.html
                            • Bob Schacht
                              ... Sakari, I would love to be able to help, but all I have to offer is a guest room in the remote town of Flagstaff (Can anything good come out of....?) In
                              Message 14 of 27 , Nov 28, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 08:15 PM 11/27/00 +0200, Sakari Häkkinen wrote:
                                >Tom K.
                                >
                                >I have also enjoyed the discussion we have had. It seems to
                                >me that we are finally not so far from each other....
                                > > And what's happening with your dissertation? Is it going to be
                                > > published sometime soon? As I recall, you said something
                                >about that a
                                > > couple of years ago.
                                >
                                >I got it published a year ago in Finnish. I would be
                                >interested to rewrite (not just translate) it in English,
                                >but that seems to be too difficult as I am a vicar, the only
                                >pastor in a little parish. So, if someone out there has any
                                >possibilities to invite me for a year or so (even half a
                                >year could be for help) to do some scholarly work on
                                >Ebionites in your university, college, institute or
                                >whatever, I would be more than pleased.

                                Sakari,
                                I would love to be able to help, but all I have to offer is a guest room in
                                the remote town of Flagstaff (Can anything good come out of....?) In one
                                way or another, I hope your dissertation will be available in English. How
                                about writing an English condensed version for JBL or a similar journal?

                                Anyway, before we leave the subject of Ebionites, would you please evaluate
                                a piece of dialogue I had with Eric Laupot? Eric Laupot's post in question
                                was dated 10/24. First, I'll quote the exchange, and then attempt to
                                provide some context.

                                >...Next, consider the one or more Gospels referred to under the names
                                >Gospel of the Hebrews (translated by Jerome into Latin); the Gospel of the
                                >Ebionites, and the Gospel of the Nazoreans, all considered to be the work
                                >of Jewish Christians of the first few centuries C.E. and known primarily
                                >from patristic sources.

                                To which Laupot responded,

                                >My view is that these are largely Pauline Christian fragments, and it is
                                >not surprising the Patristic
                                >sources would have liked them. But it is possible they were passed along
                                >by Jews. It is possible, for
                                >instance, that the Christiani weren't the only Jewish followers of Jesus.
                                >Unfortunately, our
                                >knowledge of these groups is very fragmentary and, as I have said, does
                                >not detract in any way from
                                >the reality of the existence of the Christiani. Nor would the existence of
                                >these Patristic
                                >fragments change the way we should define our terms.

                                Perhaps Eric will oblige by providing the reasons why he thinks the Gospel
                                of the Ebionites, etc. are Pauline Christian fragments, a claim which I
                                found rather surprising.

                                Perhaps you recall the posting of Eric's article. On the same day as the
                                above exchange, Laupot, responding to Richard Anderson, claims to have
                                proven Brandon's Zealot hypothesis in his article.
                                His article begins with this definition of terms:

                                >Here as elsewhere in this paper I am using "Christians" (as opposed to
                                >"Christiani"), "Christianity," and "the Church"to refer to the Pauline
                                >version only.

                                In other words, he declares all other Jesus-followers (Ebionite, Nazorean,
                                Gnostic, etc.) as insignificant ("Negligible as far as our written records
                                are concerned") and not worthy of consideration. Of course, this is useful
                                in his analysis because if there were a variety of Jesus movements, he
                                might have to evaluate the possibility that one of them might have been the
                                "Christiani" of the Tacitus fragment. This reminds me of Kriman's criticism
                                of Laupot's article, that reasonable alternative hypotheses are not considered.

                                If the "Christiani" of the Tacitus fragment are not a late insertion, other
                                possibilities than Laupot's are at least interesting. You mentioned in your
                                post of 11/26 that

                                >In my view, in those years, especially before 70 there were
                                >dozens of different groups claiming for authority over the
                                >temple/Jerusalem/Israel as a whole. We don't know that the
                                >people of Davidic descent played central roles, but who has
                                >even argued that? The Desposynoi, whoever they might have
                                >been, played no central role either geographically or
                                >theologically in the second temple period or thereafter.

                                But before going any further, it may be useful to quote the fragment here
                                from Laupot's article:

                                >(2.30.6) It is reported that Titus first deliberated, by summoning a
                                >council of war, as to whether to
                                >destroy a Temple of such workmanship. For it seemed proper to some that a
                                >consecrated Temple,
                                >distinguished above all that is human, should not be destroyed, as it
                                >would serve as a witness to Roman moderation; whereas its destruction
                                >would represent a perpetual brand of cruelty.
                                >
                                >(2.30.7) But others, on the contrary, disagreed - including Titus himself.
                                >They argued that the destruction of the Temple was a number one priority
                                >in order to destroy completely the religion [per Severus. Tacitus or
                                >another classical author would have used the word superstitio (alien
                                >religious belief). Compare Hist. 5.8 and Ann. 15.44 (exitiabilis
                                >superstitio)] of the Jews and the Christiani: For although these religions
                                >[i.e., superstitiones] are conflicting, they nevertheless developed from
                                >the same origins. The Christiani arose from the Jews: With the root
                                >removed, the branch [stirps] is easily killed.(1)

                                It strikes me that even though this putatively is a military council, the
                                text does not necessarily imply that the Christiani were themselves a
                                direct *military* threat, despite Laupot's assertion. What the fragment
                                does say about the Christiani is:
                                * The Christiani arose from the Jews; and
                                * The Temple was judged sufficiently important to the Christiani that
                                destroying the Temple would be tantamount to destroying the Christiani.
                                The best prima facie label for any such group, it seems to me, is "Jewish
                                Christians."

                                Again let us assume for the moment that this document is authentic and not
                                a late re-write (which is in doubt). It would seem to me that there might
                                be several groups of people for whom the Temple was central. Since you
                                wrote that

                                >dozens of different groups claiming for authority over the
                                >temple/Jerusalem/Israel as a whole

                                What groups might these have been, and would any of them qualify as the
                                "Christiani" of the Tacitus fragment (again, assuming its authenticity)?

                                Thanks,
                                Bob









                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Sakari H�kkinen
                                Bob Thank you for your kind offer of a guest room. Could I come next Monday and stay for a year? :) Seriously, I have promised to myself that the dissertation
                                Message 15 of 27 , Nov 29, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Bob

                                  Thank you for your kind offer of a guest room. Could I come
                                  next Monday and stay for a year? :) Seriously, I have
                                  promised to myself that the dissertation will be available
                                  in English some day, and perhaps even in near future
                                  (meaning a couple of years ahead). What I am looking for is
                                  a little bit more than a guest room.

                                  Now to your questions to me (which Eric Laupot seems to have
                                  already answered to).

                                  > Anyway, before we leave the subject of Ebionites, would
                                  you please evaluate
                                  > a piece of dialogue I had with Eric Laupot? Eric Laupot's
                                  post in question
                                  > was dated 10/24. First, I'll quote the exchange, and then
                                  attempt to
                                  > provide some context.

                                  I noticed the discussion on the list. At that time I was too
                                  stressed to take part of that and I thought that the theory
                                  of Laupot contained so many difficulties and speculations
                                  that I was not even very interested to comment it.


                                  > >...Next, consider the one or more Gospels referred to
                                  under the names
                                  > >Gospel of the Hebrews (translated by Jerome into Latin);
                                  the Gospel of the
                                  > >Ebionites, and the Gospel of the Nazoreans, all
                                  considered to be the work
                                  > >of Jewish Christians of the first few centuries C.E. and
                                  known primarily
                                  > >from patristic sources.
                                  >
                                  > To which Laupot responded,
                                  >
                                  > >My view is that these are largely Pauline Christian
                                  fragments, and it is
                                  > >not surprising the Patristic
                                  > >sources would have liked them.

                                  The so called Jewish Christian Gospels are usually
                                  considered as just the opposite than Pauline Christianity.

                                  > >But it is possible they were passed along
                                  > >by Jews.

                                  sic!! Jews - meaning what? Christian Jews or non-Christian
                                  Jews? I suppose E.L. means the latter. If so, it is more
                                  than possible, since these Gospel fragments are clearly
                                  claimed to belong to Judaic Christianity by the Church
                                  Fathers.

                                  > >It is possible, for
                                  > >instance, that the Christiani weren't the only Jewish
                                  followers of Jesus.

                                  Certainly not and in my opinion they were not necessarily
                                  Jewish at all.

                                  > Perhaps Eric will oblige by providing the reasons why he
                                  thinks the Gospel
                                  > of the Ebionites, etc. are Pauline Christian fragments, a
                                  claim which I
                                  > found rather surprising.

                                  So did I. The Ebionites rejected Paul.

                                  > His article begins with this definition of terms:

                                  It was just at those lines that I noticed that I wouldn't
                                  waste my time to reading the article.

                                  > If the "Christiani" of the Tacitus fragment are not a late
                                  insertion, other
                                  > possibilities than Laupot's are at least interesting. You
                                  mentioned in your
                                  > post of 11/26 that
                                  >
                                  > >dozens of different groups claiming for authority over
                                  the
                                  > >temple/Jerusalem/Israel as a whole
                                  >
                                  > What groups might these have been, and would any of them
                                  qualify as the
                                  > "Christiani" of the Tacitus fragment (again, assuming its
                                  authenticity)?
                                  >

                                  I think we have some firm evidence of these groups before
                                  and during the Jewish war claiming for the authority of
                                  either the temple or Jerusalem or Israel as a whole: (the
                                  groups are mentioned by the name of the leader)
                                  1. The Qumran community (DSS)
                                  2. Eleazar ben Dinai and his followers (Ant. 20.160-161;
                                  Bell. 2.253).
                                  3. Tholomaus with his brigands (Ant. 20.5)
                                  4. Theudas (Ant. 20.97-98)
                                  5. "The Egyptian prophet" (Ant. 20.169-171; Bell.
                                  2.261-263).
                                  6. Jesus son of Sapphias and his peasant followers (Vita 35,
                                  66, 132-148)
                                  7. Jesus son of Hananiah (Bell. 6.300-309)
                                  8. John of Gischala (Bell. 2.587-594, 4. 84-127; Vita 43-45,
                                  71-76
                                  9. Menachem son of Judas the Galilean (Bell. 2.433-434)
                                  10. Simon bar Giora (Bell. 2.652-653, 4.503-513, 4. 529-534)
                                  11. The Zealots (Bell. 4.147-156)
                                  12.The Sicarii (Bell. 2.254-256)

                                  To these should perhaps be added the Samaritans. Of the
                                  above mentioned it is not sure that all of them were
                                  politically orientated. E.g. Eleazar ben Dinai might have
                                  been just a leader of a bandit group, Jesus son of Hananiah
                                  might have been only a harmless prophet without any
                                  revolutionary thoughts. I think the list gives a hint that
                                  there were many groups, most certainly much more than
                                  Josephus or any other author have mentioned. I think none of
                                  these could be designated as Christians or "Christiani" of
                                  the Tacitus fragment. In my opinion the early followers of
                                  Jesus did not form any unified coalition of their own. It
                                  might have been so that some of them joined to the Zealots
                                  or some other groups, but most of them avoided the war and
                                  fled to the mountains (Mark 13, 14).

                                  BTW, what prevents to assume that Tacitus simply meant
                                  Christians by Christiani?

                                  All the best,

                                  Sakari Hakkinen, PhD
                                  University of Helsinki
                                  Department of Biblical Studies
                                  sakari.hakkinen@...
                                  http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/henkilo/henkilo.html
                                • Stephen Goranson
                                  Dear Sakkari Hakkinen and list, Thanks for your excellent response to Bob. I am pleased to see and say that we agree on much. And I, too, hope you can publish
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Nov 29, 2000
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Sakkari Hakkinen and list,

                                    Thanks for your excellent response to Bob. I am pleased to see and say that
                                    we agree on much. And I, too, hope you can publish your research in
                                    English. (The chief mystery of the Laupot article is why some perhaps
                                    sleepy editor at VC, ordinarily a good journal, accepted it.)

                                    As I understand it, your dissertation concerns Patristic references to
                                    Ebionites, and I assume you will illuminate various aspects of those
                                    passages, and conjecture about Justin, etc.

                                    Let me attempt to restate a concern. What writers such as Irenaeus knew was
                                    limited, and not always accurate; he didn't know Hebrew, I guess. It would
                                    be a mistake, IMO, to assign Ebionite origins to the earliest extant
                                    Patristic heresy condemnation by that name. Such only provides a
                                    time-by-which they must have existed. Nor, necessarily, did all use that
                                    name to the same effect. Any study of Ebionites must consider Nazarenes,
                                    and vice versa, IMO, as they overlap in some usages, rightly or wrongly.
                                    Plus, the fact that heresiology and condemnation of minut was basically
                                    itself invented after the time of Jesus fundamentally affects the calculus
                                    of this name use.

                                    Plus, Epiphanius, in effect, said that Jerusalem Christians were divinely
                                    led to Pella in the 60s--and then found Pella was a hotbed of
                                    heresies--Nazarenes and Ebionites! He may be wrong, of course, but I think
                                    the calculus is not impossible to interpret, especially when one factors in
                                    rabbis relatively prefering Ebionites and Epiphanius Nazarenes.

                                    G. Strecker presuming Ebionites began at some concrete time is second
                                    century seems to me an unhelpful assertion. And not considering NT and
                                    Qumran on the poor.

                                    R. Pritz wrote (p. 8) that Ebionites were "...at best third generation...."
                                    That's exactly wrong and backwards. Whatever date he accepts as attestation
                                    is the date-before-which they existed, not the date-after-which.

                                    Working with the calculus of differing and changing perspectives, and with
                                    limited data, may be difficult, but, in my view, it is not "impossible."

                                    best wishes,
                                    Stephen Goranson
                                    goranson@...
                                  • Eric Laupot
                                    In response to today s comments from Sakari Hakkinen and Kriman, I can only add that nothing in their comments addresses, either directly or indirectly, the
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Nov 29, 2000
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In response to today's comments from Sakari
                                      Hakkinen and Kriman, I can only add that nothing
                                      in their comments addresses, either directly
                                      or indirectly, the substance of the argument
                                      in my article. Dr. Hakkinen seems to be moving slowly
                                      towards some sort of vague counter-argument, but I
                                      refuse to attempt to "divine the intent" of his
                                      thinking. He repeats some of the same vague and muddled
                                      arguments and relies on the same confused
                                      terminology involving "[Jewish] Christians" that
                                      I have addressed on this list, only as recently
                                      as this morning (though apparently to no avail).
                                      Only today I asked for more specifics, which
                                      we're still not getting. What Dr. Hakkinen did instead
                                      was supply us with a list of facts about alleged
                                      Jewish splinter groups in the Second Temple period.
                                      What is missing from Dr. Hakkinen's comments,
                                      however, is any sort of hypothesis or conclusions
                                      attached to these facts. This is what I meant by
                                      specifics.

                                      I would add also that even though we are not
                                      dealing here with a problem in statistical mechanics,
                                      the bizarre statistical conclusions previously endorsed
                                      by Kriman apparently indicate, as I have suggested
                                      before, that he is no longer qualified in statistical
                                      mechanics or any other branch of statistics (assuming,
                                      with regard to the other branches, that he ever was).
                                      For those with a real love of knowledge, I suggest you
                                      do as I did and consult a real statistician and get a
                                      professional opinion. I am reasonably confident that
                                      my argument will stand up to this, and only a
                                      statistician is qualified to evaluate a statistical
                                      argument, rhetoric aside.


                                      Eric Laupot
                                      PO Box 286510
                                      New York, NY 10128
                                      USA
                                      elaupot@...
                                      Tel. (212) 744-9450

                                      ____________________________________________________________________
                                      Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
                                    • Sakari H�kkinen
                                      Stephen Goranson wrote ... references to ... aspects of those ... That s it. Have you read it? ... Irenaeus knew was ... guess. It would ... earliest extant
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Nov 29, 2000
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Stephen Goranson wrote
                                        > As I understand it, your dissertation concerns Patristic
                                        references to
                                        > Ebionites, and I assume you will illuminate various
                                        aspects of those
                                        > passages, and conjecture about Justin, etc.

                                        That's it. Have you read it?

                                        > Let me attempt to restate a concern. What writers such as
                                        Irenaeus knew was
                                        > limited, and not always accurate; he didn't know Hebrew, I
                                        guess. It would
                                        > be a mistake, IMO, to assign Ebionite origins to the
                                        earliest extant
                                        > Patristic heresy condemnation by that name.

                                        I agree.

                                        >Such only provides a
                                        > time-by-which they must have existed. Nor, necessarily,
                                        did all use that
                                        > name to the same effect.

                                        Again I agree. This is important to notice.

                                        > Any study of Ebionites must consider Nazarenes,
                                        > and vice versa, IMO, as they overlap in some usages,
                                        rightly or wrongly.
                                        > Plus, the fact that heresiology and condemnation of minut
                                        was basically
                                        > itself invented after the time of Jesus fundamentally
                                        affects the calculus
                                        > of this name use.

                                        As I understand it, Ebionites and Nazarenes were not equal,
                                        but close to each other. I thought it was good to first
                                        concentrate on the evidence of Ebionites. While doing this I
                                        had to consider Nazarenes, but I would like to some more
                                        research on them, too. The evidence of them is older than of
                                        Ebionites.

                                        > Plus, Epiphanius, in effect, said that Jerusalem
                                        Christians were divinely
                                        > led to Pella in the 60s--and then found Pella was a hotbed
                                        of
                                        > heresies--Nazarenes and Ebionites! He may be wrong, of
                                        course, but I think
                                        > the calculus is not impossible to interpret, especially
                                        when one factors in
                                        > rabbis relatively prefering Ebionites and Epiphanius
                                        Nazarenes.

                                        What do you think about the historicity of Pella-legend? As
                                        you know there are several difficulties to suggest that
                                        Pella really was the goal of those Jesus-followers who fled
                                        from Jerusalem. IMO Pella as a hotbed of heresies is much
                                        more plausible than Pella as a new living place of the
                                        "Urgemeinde".

                                        > G. Strecker presuming Ebionites began at some concrete
                                        time is second
                                        > century seems to me an unhelpful assertion. And not
                                        considering NT and
                                        > Qumran on the poor.

                                        L. Keck has pointed out that in NT and Qumran texts there is
                                        no evidence that "the Poor" was used as a self-designation
                                        of any group.


                                        > R. Pritz wrote (p. 8) that Ebionites were "...at best
                                        third generation...."
                                        > That's exactly wrong and backwards. Whatever date he
                                        accepts as attestation
                                        > is the date-before-which they existed, not the
                                        date-after-which.

                                        I was not very impressed on R. Pritz's book on Nazarenes,
                                        although many scholars quote him with great respect.

                                        > Working with the calculus of differing and changing
                                        perspectives, and with
                                        > limited data, may be difficult, but, in my view, it is not
                                        "impossible."

                                        Well... not impossible, but often quite useless. It is quite
                                        difficult to determine at what time some sect originated.
                                        They all have their histories. I see all this as a process.
                                        Ebionites at the time of Eusebius were not the same than at
                                        the time of Origen and Irenaeus.

                                        All the best,

                                        Sakari Hakkinen, PhD
                                        University of Helsinki
                                        Department of Biblical Studies
                                        sakari.hakkinen@...
                                        http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/henkilo/henkilo.html
                                      • goranson@duke.edu
                                        Briefly: no, I haven t read the Hakkinen dissertation; I don t read Finnish, or even Swedish (my father s parents were from Sweden). I think a flight of some
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Nov 29, 2000
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Briefly: no, I haven't read the Hakkinen dissertation; I don't read
                                          Finnish, or even Swedish (my father's parents were from Sweden).

                                          I think a flight of some Jesus-followers (and others) to east of the Jordan
                                          in the 60s is quite likely, and not likely an invention of the Pella
                                          chamber of commerce.

                                          Keck's article did no such thing as to show irrelevance of NT and Qumran
                                          usage of edat haebionim. I am not alone in thinking this. E.g., Michael
                                          Goulder NTS (1999) p. 333.

                                          I do not agree it is "useless" to explore this history earlier than the
                                          patristic texts your work concentrated on.

                                          Of course Ebionites and Nazarenes were different in some usages (after all,
                                          Nazarenes and Nazarenes are different in some usages!); hence my comments
                                          on some rabbis and Epiphanius having inverse appreciations of them. But
                                          there is some overlap in use in the texts. And little clarity in the
                                          evolutions of one term is likely, IMO, without considering both--and
                                          hairesis, and minut. (I discuss the latter two a little in an article in
                                          DSS After 50 years v. 2 ed. P. Flint).

                                          There was, IMO, an evolution from generic to specific names in some cases,
                                          including Ebionites (Psalms--> Qumran type use--> heresiological
                                          appearances--these not being the only factors, but showing a class
                                          self-designation becoming a "tag." Cf. Shiites, meaning the party--we
                                          assume partisans of Ali. Or Amoraim--a name from a common Hebrew verb, and
                                          a transitive one.).

                                          Joan Taylor's book on archaeology (and cf. the J. Baptist one) is learned
                                          but also an excessive minimalist reaction to Franciscan male religious.

                                          Qumran discoveries can aid in history of Jesus followers.

                                          Not, IMO, by claiming they were Christians, as Margoliouth, Teicher, Baer,
                                          Eisenman, Theiring, et al. do with chronologically impossible scenarios,
                                          since the teacher predated John the Baptist, et al.

                                          Nor, IMO, by the ostrich head-in-sand knee-jerk rejection (OK, poor
                                          metaphor mix :-)) of the ineluctable Essene-Qumran connection, rejections
                                          which frequently misunderstand the history of scholarship, as well as the
                                          texts and archaeology. A recent proposal suggested Essenes were non-Jewish
                                          Buddhists(!). For other Essene denial literature, the Qumran Chronicle is
                                          lately providing a large dose of such nonsense.

                                          (Nor by Laupot's "Christiani"/zealot mix-up.)

                                          Essenes, the self-designated 'ose hatorah did, in my view, have influence
                                          on Christianity, or on portions of what eventually was called Christianity.

                                          best,
                                          Stephen Goranson
                                          goranson@...
                                        • Eric Laupot
                                          It was reported by Josephus, I believe, in his Antiquities that James was executed about 2-1/2 years before the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66. Tacitus
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Nov 29, 2000
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            It was reported by Josephus, I believe, in his
                                            Antiquities that James was executed about 2-1/2
                                            years before the outbreak of the Jewish War in
                                            66. Tacitus' Christiani in his fragment 2 were
                                            most likely named after Tacitus' Christus
                                            (who was executed by Pontius Pilate), according to
                                            Tacitus Annals 15.44.

                                            Eric Laupot

                                            ____________________________________________________________________
                                            Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
                                          • Bob Schacht
                                            ... Good! ... What about the followers of James the brother of Jesus aka James the Just? Is there some reason that he does not appear on your list? His resume
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Nov 29, 2000
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              At 02:07 PM 11/29/00 +0200, Sakari Häkkinen wrote:
                                              >Bob
                                              >
                                              >... I have promised to myself that the dissertation will be available
                                              >in English some day, and perhaps even in near future
                                              >(meaning a couple of years ahead). ...

                                              Good!

                                              >Now to your questions to me (which Eric Laupot seems to have
                                              >already answered to)....
                                              > > ... You mentioned in your post of 11/26 that
                                              > >
                                              > > >dozens of different groups claiming for authority over the
                                              > > >temple/Jerusalem/Israel as a whole
                                              > >
                                              > > What groups might these have been, and would any of them
                                              >qualify as the
                                              > > "Christiani" of the Tacitus fragment (again, assuming its
                                              >authenticity)?
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              >I think we have some firm evidence of these groups before
                                              >and during the Jewish war claiming for the authority of
                                              >either the temple or Jerusalem or Israel as a whole: (the
                                              >groups are mentioned by the name of the leader)
                                              >1. The Qumran community (DSS)
                                              >2. Eleazar ben Dinai and his followers (Ant. 20.160-161;
                                              >Bell. 2.253).
                                              >3. Tholomaus with his brigands (Ant. 20.5)
                                              >4. Theudas (Ant. 20.97-98)
                                              >5. "The Egyptian prophet" (Ant. 20.169-171; Bell.
                                              >2.261-263).
                                              >6. Jesus son of Sapphias and his peasant followers (Vita 35,
                                              >66, 132-148)
                                              >7. Jesus son of Hananiah (Bell. 6.300-309)
                                              >8. John of Gischala (Bell. 2.587-594, 4. 84-127; Vita 43-45,
                                              >71-76
                                              >9. Menachem son of Judas the Galilean (Bell. 2.433-434)
                                              >10. Simon bar Giora (Bell. 2.652-653, 4.503-513, 4. 529-534)
                                              >11. The Zealots (Bell. 4.147-156)
                                              >12.The Sicarii (Bell. 2.254-256)
                                              >
                                              >To these should perhaps be added the Samaritans. Of the
                                              >above mentioned it is not sure that all of them were
                                              >politically orientated. E.g. Eleazar ben Dinai might have
                                              >been just a leader of a bandit group, Jesus son of Hananiah
                                              >might have been only a harmless prophet without any
                                              >revolutionary thoughts. I think the list gives a hint that
                                              >there were many groups, most certainly much more than
                                              >Josephus or any other author have mentioned. I think none of
                                              >these could be designated as Christians or "Christiani" of
                                              >the Tacitus fragment. In my opinion the early followers of
                                              >Jesus did not form any unified coalition of their own. It
                                              >might have been so that some of them joined to the Zealots
                                              >or some other groups, but most of them avoided the war and
                                              >fled to the mountains (Mark 13, 14).

                                              What about the followers of James the brother of Jesus aka James the Just?
                                              Is there some reason that he does not appear on your list?
                                              His resume is abundantly documented in Acts (12:17; 15:1-20; 21:18; etc.),
                                              Galatians (1:19; 2:1-10, 12), I Cor 15:7, Josephus Antiq. 20.200 & Hegesippus.

                                              Gillman, in the article on James in the ABD, writes that these passages
                                              imply that he played a significant leadership role in the Jerusalem Church.
                                              If the testimony of Hegesippus is reliable and refers to the same man
                                              (James "the Just"), he was also a significant figure in the Jerusalem
                                              temple, and Josephus considers him important enough to mention.
                                              Furthermore, James apparently lived until shortly before the destruction of
                                              Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Thus, if the Tacitus Fragment is genuine and not
                                              edited by a later hand, James might well have been alive and in active
                                              leadership at the time of the military council depicted in the Tacitus
                                              fragment. Therefore, it seems that if the label "christiani" in the Tacitus
                                              fragment is genuine, it seems to me most likely that it referred to James
                                              and his followers. (Robert Brenchley made this proposal in his 11/10 post
                                              to XTalk.)


                                              >BTW, what prevents to assume that Tacitus simply meant
                                              >Christians by Christiani?

                                              Laupot tries to argue against this, so I'll have to refer you to his
                                              article. In brief, he wrote to me on XTAlk on 10/24 that
                                              >Based on Tacitus' description of his Christiani in
                                              >fragment 2 and Annals 15.44, there is no evidence
                                              >whatsoever that his Christiani were the jolly
                                              >fishermen who trudged around Gaililee as
                                              >described by Pauline Christianity.

                                              Best regards,
                                              Bob


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Sakari H�kkinen
                                              ... I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by my _attempt to divine the intent _. ... I was actually responding to Bob s message, not yours. The
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Nov 30, 2000
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Eric Laupot wrote:
                                                > In response to today's comments from Sakari
                                                > Hakkinen and Kriman, I can only add that nothing
                                                > in their comments addresses, either directly
                                                > or indirectly, the substance of the argument
                                                > in my article. Dr. Hakkinen seems to be moving slowly
                                                > towards some sort of vague counter-argument, but I
                                                > refuse to attempt to "divine the intent" of his
                                                > thinking.

                                                I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by my
                                                _attempt to "divine the intent"_.

                                                >He repeats some of the same vague and muddled
                                                > arguments and relies on the same confused
                                                > terminology involving "[Jewish] Christians" that
                                                > I have addressed on this list, only as recently
                                                > as this morning (though apparently to no avail).
                                                > Only today I asked for more specifics, which
                                                > we're still not getting. What Dr. Hakkinen did instead
                                                > was supply us with a list of facts about alleged
                                                > Jewish splinter groups in the Second Temple period.
                                                > What is missing from Dr. Hakkinen's comments,
                                                > however, is any sort of hypothesis or conclusions
                                                > attached to these facts. This is what I meant by
                                                > specifics.

                                                I was actually responding to Bob's message, not yours. The
                                                list is a response to his question whether I know what kind
                                                of groups there were before 70's. On an e-mail list I would
                                                rather offer the facts than hypothesis. BTW, I have found
                                                one of the weaknesses of this list, that there are much more
                                                theories based almost solely on speculations than
                                                interesting discussions on facts, for example the texts.

                                                In another message Laupot wrote:
                                                > -------- (EL) That's right. Furthermore, I never
                                                > use the term "Christian Jews," because I was unable to
                                                > define it. How would you define it?

                                                Briefly: By this term I meant those Jews, who believed in
                                                Jesus.

                                                > ------- (EL) Could you explain this? The Christiani
                                                > were *very* closely connected with the Second Temple,
                                                > and Gentiles weren't even allowed into the Temple. If
                                                > the Christiani were non-Jewish, did they have
                                                > a long distance relationship with the Temple?

                                                No, this is not what I meant. It just came to my mind that
                                                we are discussing on Tacitus' view of "Christiani", not
                                                historical facts. How well did Tacitus know what were the
                                                differences between Jewish sects? Could it be that he shared
                                                the common knowledge of the time that the Christians were
                                                separated or at least had their origins in Judaism and that
                                                the temple was the center of Jewish religion? It seems to me
                                                that his words are quite understandable on this
                                                presupposition, but I must admit I am not an expert on
                                                Tacitus.

                                                > -------- (EL) Well, why are you wasting our time
                                                > critiquing an article you haven't read?

                                                I apologize having wasted your time. However, I was not
                                                criticizing your article, which I did not find interesting
                                                enough, but responding to Bob's message. The same must be
                                                said on your comments on the list I presented. The list was
                                                not meant to disprove Tacitus or criticize your article,
                                                which I still haven't read.

                                                Finally: I did not want to refute your conclusions nor
                                                attack to you personally. Sorry, if you misunderstood me
                                                that way. I have noticed that on this list things tend to
                                                get personal and the main issue is often quite far from the
                                                original one, that stands in the title of the message. That
                                                is wasting time.

                                                Best wishes,

                                                Sakari Hakkinen, PhD
                                                University of Helsinki
                                                Department of Biblical Studies
                                                sakari.hakkinen@...
                                                http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/henkilo/henkilo.html
                                              • Bob Schacht
                                                ... Tom, I ve been wanting to follow up with you on this ever since you wrote it. ... Such as Ignatius? or who else (or what other texts) did you have in mind?
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Dec 1, 2000
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  At 01:45 AM 11/25/00 +0000, Thomas A. Kopecek wrote:
                                                  >--- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@y...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > > Tom, thanks for the Origen quote. One question about it:
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > > >Origen makes a distinction in the prologue to the 4G between
                                                  > > >God-with-the-article and God-without-the-article. Who knows? Maybe
                                                  > > >this was what the original author of the prologue meant. It makes
                                                  > > >sense to me. I'm not, of course, suggesting that the person
                                                  > > >responsible for the original version in Greek of the prologue would
                                                  > > >agree with everything Origen says, but perhaps he might agree with
                                                  > > >Origen's linguistic distinction. Below is the relevant passage
                                                  >from
                                                  > > >Origen's commentary. For convenience's sake I reproduce the text
                                                  >from
                                                  > > >the English of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
                                                  > > >
                                                  > > >"We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He
                                                  >does
                                                  > > >not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with
                                                  >the
                                                  > > >niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article,
                                                  >and
                                                  > > >in some he omits it. ... Now there are many who are
                                                  > > >sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great
                                                  > > >perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods,
                                                  >and
                                                  > > >their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked.
                                                  > > >Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own
                                                  >besides
                                                  > > >that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God
                                                  >all
                                                  > > >but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a
                                                  > > >separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence
                                                  >fall
                                                  > > >outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each
                                                  > > >other. To such persons we have to say ...
                                                  > >
                                                  > > My question is, who are the "they" to whom Origen refers? Are they
                                                  >the same
                                                  > > persons to whom the author of the Prologue addressed John 1:18?
                                                  >
                                                  >...I think Origen's "they" is tolerably certain.

                                                  Tom, I've been wanting to follow up with you on this ever since you wrote it.

                                                  > He has in mind so-called Modalistic Monarchians

                                                  Such as Ignatius? or who else (or what other texts) did you have in mind?

                                                  > and some sorts of so-called Dynamic Monarchians or Adoptionists.

                                                  = Jewish circles within Christianity, as well as (see below) the Shepherd
                                                  of Hermas, Theodotus of Byzantium, & Paul of Samosata? And maybe the Didache?

                                                  Of course, I'm trying to see your categories in late First Century terms,
                                                  if not in terms of Origen's immediate predecessors and contemporaries.

                                                  Bob

                                                  >The former simply identified Father and
                                                  >Son and said the difference was only in mode--read "name". The second
                                                  >affirmed that the line between the Father and Son was the
                                                  >creator/creation line, though there was wide disparity between where
                                                  >in the spectrum of creation the "Son" fell, from an angel (see some
                                                  >passages in the Shepherd of Hermas) to an adopted human being (see
                                                  >the followers of Theodotus of Byzantium, Paul of Samosata, etc.).
                                                  >
                                                  >Tom


                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Thomas A. Kopecek
                                                  ... mind? Yes, Ignatius is the earliest. Noetus of Smyrna is another. The language in Melito of Sardis often appears rather modalistic as well, but on a more
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Dec 2, 2000
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@y...> wrote:

                                                    > > He has in mind so-called Modalistic Monarchians
                                                    >
                                                    > Such as Ignatius? or who else (or what other texts) did you have in
                                                    mind?

                                                    Yes, Ignatius is the earliest. Noetus of Smyrna is another. The
                                                    language in Melito of Sardis often appears rather modalistic as well,
                                                    but on a more popular and liturgical level.

                                                    >
                                                    > > and some sorts of so-called Dynamic Monarchians or Adoptionists.
                                                    >
                                                    > = Jewish circles within Christianity, as well as (see below) the
                                                    Shepherd
                                                    > of Hermas, Theodotus of Byzantium, & Paul of Samosata? And maybe
                                                    the
                                                    Didache?

                                                    Yes.

                                                    >
                                                    > Of course, I'm trying to see your categories in late First Century
                                                    terms,
                                                    > if not in terms of Origen's immediate predecessors and
                                                    contemporaries.

                                                    I think Ignatius is the first of the outright modalists, but he
                                                    probably got some of his modalism from his particular "take" on the
                                                    Gospel of John.

                                                    I find myself more hard pressed to sort out what was going on in the
                                                    late first century: relative to the later period, there are so few
                                                    data and so many different reconstructions of how to put the data
                                                    together.

                                                    Best, Tom

                                                    ___
                                                    Thomas A. Kopecek
                                                    Professor of Religion
                                                    Central College, Pella, IA 50219
                                                    kopecekt@...
                                                  • Thomas A. Kopecek
                                                    ... Century ... Perhaps now that I have a bit more time I should clarify what I said ... Although we have a number of what seem to be genuine letters from
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Dec 2, 2000
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Bob Schacht wrote:

                                                      > > Of course, I'm trying to see your categories in late First
                                                      Century
                                                      > terms,
                                                      > > if not in terms of Origen's immediate predecessors and
                                                      > contemporaries.

                                                      Perhaps now that I have a bit more time I should clarify what I said
                                                      about Ignatius and the Gospel of John, that is:

                                                      > I think Ignatius is the first of the outright modalists, but he
                                                      > probably got some of his modalism from his particular "take" on the
                                                      > Gospel of John.

                                                      Although we have a number of what seem to be genuine letters from
                                                      Ignatius, there are two other sets, one an interesting (to me)
                                                      interpolated set from the fourth century, with a number of new
                                                      letters appended. In what are generally regarded as his genuine
                                                      letters Ignatius never quotes from NT documents but rather "echoes"
                                                      many of them, yet never in such a way as to convey that he thinks
                                                      them
                                                      to be scriptural in the way the Jewish Bible was scriptural. Which
                                                      letters are echoed are a matter of some dispute. I, for one, am
                                                      convinced Ignatius knew the Gospel of John, for the following reasons:

                                                      In his letter to the Magnesians 8:2 he seems to be echoing the Gospel
                                                      of John when he says, "...there is one God who revealed himself
                                                      through JC his Son, who is his Logos who came forth from 'silence',
                                                      who pleased him who sent him in every way." In his letter to the
                                                      Romans 7:3 he seems to be echoing Gospel of John 6 when he says, "I
                                                      take no pleasure in corruptible food or the pleasures of this life. I
                                                      want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the
                                                      seed of David; and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible
                                                      love (an allusion also to I John 4?)." In his letter to the
                                                      Philadelphians 7:1 he seems to echo John 3:8 when he dictates, "For
                                                      even though certain ones wished to deceive me according to the flesh,
                                                      the Spirit is nonetheless not deceived, since it is from God, for it
                                                      knows whence it comes and where it is going, and makes clear the
                                                      hidden things."

                                                      Whereas Ignatius asserts at least a verbal distinction between the
                                                      "Father" and "Jesus Christ our God" (see To The Ephesians, Inscr.)
                                                      and in Ad Eph. 4:2 says one ought in worship "to sing with one voice
                                                      through Jesus Christ to the Father," unlike people like Justin, who
                                                      calls the Son/Logos "another God" who is "under the Maker of all
                                                      things," Ignatius has moved the traditional language which
                                                      distinguishes between Father and Son in a modalistic direction when
                                                      he doesn't say that God "raised Jesus from the dead" but rather that
                                                      Jesus "truly suffered just as he also truly raised himself" (Ad
                                                      Smyrn.
                                                      2:1).

                                                      This is not to say that Ignatius is as systematic a modalist as
                                                      Noetus, for example, who was able to say that "Christ was the Father
                                                      himself" and that "the Father himself was born, suffered, and died"
                                                      (Hippolytus, Noet. 1). Ignatius is closer to the sermonic language of
                                                      Melito of Sardis' Homily on the Passover, where Melito too
                                                      distinguishes between God and the Logos in #47 but also can in #8-9
                                                      preach:
                                                      For as Son he was born . . . , as human being he was buried.
                                                      He rose from the dead as God, being by nature both God and a
                                                      human being. He is everything, . . . Father inasmuch as he
                                                      begets, Son inasmuch as he is begotten, . . . human inasmuch
                                                      as he is buried, God inasmuch as he rises.
                                                      Indeed, Melito comes pretty close to Noetus when he says in #96, "God
                                                      is murdered."

                                                      Of course, you are interested in the latter part of the first
                                                      century, about which I can add nothing to the normal speculations of
                                                      NT scholars.

                                                      Tom

                                                      ___
                                                      Thomas A. Kopecek
                                                      Professor of Religion
                                                      Central College, Pella, IA 50219
                                                      kopecekt
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.