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

Re: Early dating

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    ... Yuri, Early dating of the Gospels is not a new issue. I can only reiterate Charles Cutler Torrey, Professor of Semitic Languages, Yale University, I
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 9, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

      > John,
      >
      > In light of your proposed early dating, I wonder how do you explain the
      > fact that the Pauline epistles seem to betray no knowledge of the gospels
      > (with the exception of 1Cor 11:23-25/Lk 22:14ff, which passage is clearly
      > liturgical and could have come from anywhere).

      Yuri,

      Early dating of the Gospels is not a new issue. I can only reiterate
      Charles Cutler Torrey, Professor of Semitic Languages, Yale University, " I
      challenged my NT colleaugues [in 1934] to designate even one passage from
      any of the four Gospels giving clear evidence of a date later than AD 50 . .
      . The challenge was not met, nor will it be, for there is no such passage."
      (C.C. Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church (NY, 1941) 91). It is very
      interesting, for example, that Matthew 27,35 follows John 19,24. If we
      remove all biases and
      presuggestions about Gospel order and priority then we objectively have a
      phenomenon that must be given fair consideration, i.e., Matthew citing John.
      Moreover, Bishop J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New testament. ((London,
      1976) proposed Mark (c. AD 45) Matthew (AD 62) Luke (AD 62), John (c. AD
      64/5). J.A.T. Robinson, “The New Look on the Fourth Gospel.” (Oxford,
      1978)and The Priority of John, ed. J. F. Coakley (London: SCM 1995), and
      Thiering are now arguing that John may even predate Mark. John Wenham,
      Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke (InterVarsity Press, 1992) posits: Matthew (c.
      AD 40); Mark (c. AD 45); Luke (c. AD 54); Acts (AD 62). In a recent work
      Dom Bernard Orchard, OSB, The Origin & Evolution of the Gospels (Ealing
      Abbey Scriptorium, 1993) 1, argues for the early dating of the Synoptics
      written in the lifetime of SS. Peter & Paul. Carsten Peter Theide, The
      Earliest Gospel Fragments (Paternoster Press, 1991) 23-41, also provides
      both paleographic and archaelogical evidence for early dating. David A.
      Fiensy, dates Matthew (AD 50 to 55), yet 40 to 60 is possible. William
      Hendriksen, dates Mark (AD 40 to 65), with the earlier date favored.

      Yuri, now you need to demonstrate a valid argument that the Pauline corpus
      provides a strong case prohibiting what so many other researchers see as no
      barrier to their early dating.

      Cordially in Christ,
      John
      <><

      John N. Lupia
      501 North Avenue B-1
      Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
      JLupia2@...
      <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>
      "during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium approaches . .
      . unity among all Christians of the various confessions will increase until
      they reach full communion." John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16





      _______________________________________________________
      Send a cool gift with your E-Card
      http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
    • Richard Anderson
      ... What I find interesting is that the word gospel [euaggelion] appears 77 times throughout the NT in places such as 2 Cor. 8:18 and most of the Pauline
      Message 2 of 26 , Jul 9, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

        > John,
        >
        > In light of your proposed early dating, I wonder how do you explain the
        > fact that the Pauline epistles seem to betray no knowledge of the gospels
        > (with the exception of 1Cor 11:23-25/Lk 22:14ff, which passage is clearly
        > liturgical and could have come from anywhere).

        What I find interesting is that the word 'gospel' [euaggelion] appears 77
        times throughout the NT in places such as 2 Cor. 8:18 and most of the
        Pauline epistles and also including G. of Matt. and G. of Mark.

        2 Cor. 8:18 is evidence that Paul knows about the gospel. That the word
        'euaggelion' does not appear in the body of the text of Luke and John is
        evidence of their early publication and the fact that 'euaggelion' did not
        become associated with the writings we now know of as the gospels until
        sometime after the publication of the first two books.

        Richard H. Anderson
        Wallingford PA
        http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke
      • Peter Kirby
        For a history of the term gospel, see Helmut Koester, _Ancient Christian Gospels_ (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1990), pp. 1-23. Needless to say, 2 Cor 8:18
        Message 3 of 26 , Jul 9, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          For a history of the term "gospel," see Helmut Koester, _Ancient Christian
          Gospels_ (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1990), pp. 1-23.

          Needless to say, 2 Cor 8:18 provides absolutely no evidence that Paul was
          familiar with a written gospel document.

          best,
          Peter Kirby
          http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Richard Anderson <randerson58@...>
          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 6:07 PM
          Subject: RE: [John_Lit] Re: Early dating


          > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
          >
          > > John,
          > >
          > > In light of your proposed early dating, I wonder how do you explain the
          > > fact that the Pauline epistles seem to betray no knowledge of the
          gospels
          > > (with the exception of 1Cor 11:23-25/Lk 22:14ff, which passage is
          clearly
          > > liturgical and could have come from anywhere).
          >
          > What I find interesting is that the word 'gospel' [euaggelion] appears 77
          > times throughout the NT in places such as 2 Cor. 8:18 and most of the
          > Pauline epistles and also including G. of Matt. and G. of Mark.
          >
          > 2 Cor. 8:18 is evidence that Paul knows about the gospel. That the word
          > 'euaggelion' does not appear in the body of the text of Luke and John is
          > evidence of their early publication and the fact that 'euaggelion' did not
          > become associated with the writings we now know of as the gospels until
          > sometime after the publication of the first two books.
          >
          > Richard H. Anderson
          > Wallingford PA
          > http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke
          >
          >
          >
          > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • John Lupia
          On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:17:42 -0700, johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com wrote: ... Christian ... 77 ... is ... not ... Peter, A surprising number of
          Message 4 of 26 , Jul 9, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:17:42 -0700, johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
            wrote:


            Peter Kirby wrote:

            > For a history of the term "gospel," see Helmut Koester, _Ancient
            Christian
            > Gospels_ (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1990), pp. 1-23.
            >
            > Needless to say, 2 Cor 8:18 provides absolutely no evidence that Paul was
            > familiar with a written gospel document.


            Whereas Richard Anderson rightly pointed out:

            > > What I find interesting is that the word 'gospel' [euaggelion] appears
            77
            > > times throughout the NT in places such as 2 Cor. 8:18 and most of the
            > > Pauline epistles and also including G. of Matt. and G. of Mark.
            > >
            > > 2 Cor. 8:18 is evidence that Paul knows about the gospel. That the word
            > > 'euaggelion' does not appear in the body of the text of Luke and John
            is
            > > evidence of their early publication and the fact that 'euaggelion' did
            not
            > > become associated with the writings we now know of as the gospels until
            > > sometime after the publication of the first two books.

            Peter,

            A surprising number of researchers do not share this view that Paul was
            unaware of already published and widely circulating Church written Gospels.
            Helmut Koester has not supplied a convincing presentation of the philiogical
            sense found in 2 Cor. 8,18. I think it would serve you well to give
            Richard Anderson's posting a fair hearing by contemplating what he has
            offered as having elements of sound advice and solid scholarship. Moreover,
            current scholarship does not completely dismiss those researchers I have
            listed who also find substantial cause to give the Gospels an early dating.
            Additionally, you will find that current trends in papyrology are also
            redating many of the NT papyri giving them earlier dates (cf. Comfort &
            Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Tyndale,
            2001).

            Cordially in Christ,
            John
            <><

            John N. Lupia
            501 North Avenue B-1
            Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
            JLupia2@...
            <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>
            "during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium approaches . .
            . unity among all Christians of the various confessions will increase until
            they reach full communion." John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16





            _______________________________________________________
            Send a cool gift with your E-Card
            http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            ... John, Yes, as many of us know, some scholars did propose early dating before. So then how do they answer the question that I asked you? Assuming the early
            Message 5 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, John Lupia wrote:
              > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
              >
              > > John,
              > >
              > > In light of your proposed early dating, I wonder how do you explain the
              > > fact that the Pauline epistles seem to betray no knowledge of the gospels
              > > (with the exception of 1Cor 11:23-25/Lk 22:14ff, which passage is clearly
              > > liturgical and could have come from anywhere).
              >
              > Yuri,
              >
              > Early dating of the Gospels is not a new issue. I can only reiterate
              > Charles Cutler Torrey, Professor of Semitic Languages, Yale
              > University, " I challenged my NT colleaugues [in 1934] to designate
              > even one passage from any of the four Gospels giving clear evidence of
              > a date later than AD 50 . . . The challenge was not met, nor will it
              > be, for there is no such passage." (C.C. Torrey, Documents of the
              > Primitive Church (NY, 1941) 91).

              John,

              Yes, as many of us know, some scholars did propose early dating before. So
              then how do they answer the question that I asked you?

              Assuming the early dating such as you've proposed, as a historian, I would
              certainly like to try to understand what would have motivated the Blessed
              Apostle Paul to completely ignore the gospels, that presumably would have
              been circulating widely all around him, in his voluminous correspondence?

              Or perhaps these early gospels would not have been circulating widely, but
              instead kept secret?

              As to Torrey's question, how about the genealogies?

              Best,

              Yuri.

              > It is very interesting, for example, that Matthew 27,35 follows John
              > 19,24. If we remove all biases and presuggestions about Gospel order
              > and priority then we objectively have a phenomenon that must be given
              > fair consideration, i.e., Matthew citing John. Moreover, Bishop J. A.
              > T. Robinson, Redating the New testament. ((London, 1976) proposed
              > Mark (c. AD 45) Matthew (AD 62) Luke (AD 62), John (c. AD 64/5).
              > J.A.T. Robinson, “The New Look on the Fourth Gospel.” (Oxford,
              > 1978)and The Priority of John, ed. J. F. Coakley (London: SCM 1995),
              > and Thiering are now arguing that John may even predate Mark. John
              > Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke (InterVarsity Press, 1992)
              > posits: Matthew (c. AD 40); Mark (c. AD 45); Luke (c. AD 54); Acts (AD
              > 62). In a recent work Dom Bernard Orchard, OSB, The Origin &
              > Evolution of the Gospels (Ealing Abbey Scriptorium, 1993) 1, argues
              > for the early dating of the Synoptics written in the lifetime of SS.
              > Peter & Paul. Carsten Peter Theide, The Earliest Gospel Fragments
              > (Paternoster Press, 1991) 23-41, also provides both paleographic and
              > archaelogical evidence for early dating. David A. Fiensy, dates
              > Matthew (AD 50 to 55), yet 40 to 60 is possible. William Hendriksen,
              > dates Mark (AD 40 to 65), with the earlier date favored.
              >
              > Yuri, now you need to demonstrate a valid argument that the Pauline
              > corpus provides a strong case prohibiting what so many other
              > researchers see as no barrier to their early dating.
              >
              > Cordially in Christ,
              > John
            • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
              In a message dated 7/10/2001 1:03:56 PM Central Daylight Time, Yuri ... There is of course a middle ground, which is that although the gospels were circulated,
              Message 6 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 7/10/2001 1:03:56 PM Central Daylight Time, Yuri
                (yuku@...) writes:


                >
                > Assuming the early dating such as you've proposed, as a historian, I would
                > certainly like to try to understand what would have motivated the Blessed
                > Apostle Paul to completely ignore the gospels, that presumably would have
                > been circulating widely all around him, in his voluminous correspondence?
                >
                > Or perhaps these early gospels would not have been circulating widely, but
                > instead kept secret?
                >
                >

                There is of course a middle ground, which is that although the gospels were
                circulated, they were not very widely circulated. Burton Mack's paradigm for
                the respective provenances of the gospels has only Luke's in the general area
                of Paul's missions, with the others in Syria or Northern Palestine. There's
                a pretty strong case to be made for this placement.

                Although I personally think the gospels are later than John proposes, I don't
                think that Paul's apparent unfamiliarity with them weighs against an early
                date. Even if every Christian congregation in Damascus and Antioch had
                copies of Mark and Matthew (which they probably did not) it would not be a
                very strong case for the availability of the gospels in Ephesus or Corinth.

                best,

                Ed Tyler



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • John Lupia
                ... I am afraid your point escapes me. Can you clarify this? The questions you have about St. Paul and the Gospels is probably more appropriate to the
                Message 7 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yuri Kushinsky wrote:

                  > As to Torrey's question, how about the genealogies?

                  I am afraid your point escapes me. Can you clarify this?


                  The questions you have about St. Paul and the Gospels is probably more
                  appropriate to the Corpus-Paul List (email:
                  corpus-paul@...). So, I will only very briefly touch on it
                  here hoping the moderators will understand I am only trying to assist you
                  briefly out of courtesy.

                  That the Pauline corpus does not reflect all four Gospels is IMHO a rather
                  poor reading and interpretation. Why does St. Paul throughout his writings
                  say he is crucified with Christ and that he boasts of the cross which
                  squares perfectly with Matthew 16,24 "if anyone wishes to come after me, let
                  him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."? There are dozens
                  of examples that point to St. Paul's direct and intimate knowledge of the
                  four Gospels. As an example I will show using the subject of "anger" since
                  it is a brief one (in keeping with my promise of brevity) that demonstrates
                  this.

                  Luke 14,21;15,28 provide examples of anger and its sinfulness. Whereas
                  Matthew 5,22 "who is angry with his brother" states it another way. It
                  seems pellucid that St. Paul knew these Gospels and also taught on this
                  subject in the same manner:

                  Ephesians 4,26 "In your anger do not sin."
                  Ephesians 4,31 "get rid of anger"
                  Colossians 3,18 ""anger, rage . . ."
                  1 Timothy 2,8 "without anger or disputing"
                  Titus 1,7 "not quick-tempered"

                  Cordially in Christ,
                  John
                  <><


                  John N. Lupia
                  501 North Avenue B-1
                  Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
                  JLupia2@...
                  <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>
                  "during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium approaches . .
                  . unity among all Christians of the various confessions will increase until
                  they reach full communion." John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16





                  _______________________________________________________
                  Send a cool gift with your E-Card
                  http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
                • John Lupia
                  ... I find this rather puzzling considering copying practices in the various scribal centers at Corinth, Thessaloniki, Ephesus, Antioch, Ascalon, Alexandria,
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ed Tyler wrote:

                    >Even if every Christian congregation in Damascus and Antioch had
                    >copies of Mark and Matthew (which they probably did not) it would not be a
                    >very strong case for the availability of the gospels in Ephesus or Corinth.


                    I find this rather puzzling considering copying practices in the various
                    scribal centers at Corinth, Thessaloniki, Ephesus, Antioch, Ascalon,
                    Alexandria, Carthage, Rome, Rheims and Lyons in the first century. Could
                    you elaborate on this?

                    Cordially in Christ,
                    John
                    <><


                    John N. Lupia
                    501 North Avenue B-1
                    Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
                    JLupia2@...
                    <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ <>< ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><>
                    "during this important time, as the eve of the new millennium approaches . .
                    . unity among all Christians of the various confessions will increase until
                    they reach full communion." John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 16





                    _______________________________________________________
                    Send a cool gift with your E-Card
                    http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
                  • James McGrath
                    Although I m wary of veering too far off John here, I thought I d mention a few points in relation to the recent discussion of Gospel dating. It is important
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Although I'm wary of veering too far off John here, I
                      thought I'd mention a few points in relation to the
                      recent discussion of Gospel dating. It is important to
                      remember that Paul is mainly (or perhaps exclusively,
                      depending on the authenticity of Ephesians and
                      Colossians) writing to churches that are known to him.
                      He is thus not repeating the basic foundational
                      teachings that he would offer when he planted a
                      church. These presumably included an account of who
                      Jesus was, what he did and some of what he taught.
                      Paul clearly alludes to elements of the Jesus
                      tradition that are also found in the Synoptics (his
                      use of 'abba, Father' is one significant example). So
                      I don't think that the Pauline letters can help us one
                      way or another concerning the date of the written
                      Gospels. Living in an oral culture, Paul would have
                      been able to reproduce with great fidelity elements of
                      the Jesus tradition regardless of whether they were to
                      be found in writing somewhere yet or not.

                      Gosh, it is great to have enough free time to actually
                      participate in these discussions for a change!

                      Best wishes,

                      James McGrath







                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
                      http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                    • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
                      In a message dated 7/10/2001 4:03:07 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Sure, John: I probably should have said simultaneous availability in Ephesus or Corinth.
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 7/10/2001 4:03:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
                        JLupia2@... writes:


                        >
                        > >Even if every Christian congregation in Damascus and Antioch had
                        > >copies of Mark and Matthew (which they probably did not) it would not be a
                        > >very strong case for the availability of the gospels in Ephesus or Corinth.
                        >
                        >
                        > I find this rather puzzling considering copying practices in the various
                        > scribal centers at Corinth, Thessaloniki, Ephesus, Antioch, Ascalon,
                        > Alexandria, Carthage, Rome, Rheims and Lyons in the first century. Could
                        > you elaborate on this?
                        >
                        > Cordially in Christ,
                        > John
                        > <><
                        >
                        >

                        Sure, John: I probably should have said "simultaneous availability in
                        Ephesus or Corinth." Obviously the gospels arrived there and were
                        disseminated. But Paul's letters are pretty early, and even the dates you
                        assign to the gospels do not allow for sufficient time for this process to
                        occur.

                        Before any of the scribal centers you note could copy anything, the text had
                        to be available to them. Dissemination took some time, of course. Assuming
                        for discussion that you are correct about the early dates of the gospels, we
                        still cannot assume that a gospel originating in Antioch or Damascus or
                        Caesarea in, say, 50-60 CE would find its way into any of the cities you
                        mention early enough to be available to Paul. (Assuming the standard dates
                        for Paul's letters.) Apparently, once the gospels did get to these places
                        they were indeed copied as you suggest. But, also apparently, that was some
                        time after Paul wrote his letters.

                        best.

                        Ed


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                        ... that ... I agree that a Pauline listserve is the appropriate place to discuss this, so I will also be brief. On the issue of Paul s dependence upon the
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          John Lupia wrote:

                          > That the Pauline corpus does not reflect all four
                          > Gospels is IMHO a rather poor reading and
                          > interpretation .... There are dozens of examples
                          that
                          > point to St. Paul's direct and intimate knowledge of
                          > the four Gospels .... It seems pellucid that St.
                          > Paul knew these Gospels and also taught on this
                          > subject in the same manner ....

                          I agree that a Pauline listserve is the appropriate
                          place to discuss this, so I will also be brief.

                          On the issue of Paul's dependence upon the gospels: In
                          my opinion, pauline parallels to the four gospels are
                          less likely due to Paul's knowledge of the four
                          gospels and more likely due to Paul's knowledge of
                          what Jesus said and did based upon oral and written
                          sources common to him and the gospel writers.

                          Thus -- to make this post roughly fit the Johannine
                          listserve -- I don't think that a Pauline parallel to
                          John's Gospel, for instance, would shed much light
                          upon the dating of John unless that parallel were a
                          direct quote or otherwise uniquely Johannine.

                          Jeffery Hodges

                          =====
                          Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                          Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                          447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                          Yangsandong 411
                          South Korea

                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
                          http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                        • khs@picknowl.com.au
                          ... rather poor reading and interpretation. Why does St. Paul throughout his writings say he is crucified with Christ and that he boasts of the cross which
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In johannine_literature@y..., John Lupia <JLupia2@e...> wrote:
                            >
                            > That the Pauline corpus does not reflect all four Gospels is IMHO a
                            rather poor reading and interpretation. Why does St. Paul
                            throughout his writings say he is crucified with Christ and that he
                            boasts of the cross which squares perfectly with Matthew 16,24 "if
                            anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
                            cross, and follow me."? There are dozens of examples that point to
                            St. Paul's direct and intimate knowledge of the four Gospels. As an
                            example I will show using the subject of "anger" since it is a brief
                            one (in keeping with my promise of brevity) that demonstrates
                            > this.
                            >
                            > Luke 14,21;15,28 provide examples of anger and its sinfulness.
                            Whereas Matthew 5,22 "who is angry with his brother" states it
                            another way. It seems pellucid that St. Paul knew these Gospels and
                            also taught on this subject in the same manner:
                            >
                            > Ephesians 4,26 "In your anger do not sin."
                            > Ephesians 4,31 "get rid of anger"
                            > Colossians 3,18 ""anger, rage . . ."
                            > 1 Timothy 2,8 "without anger or disputing"
                            > Titus 1,7 "not quick-tempered"


                            Dear John,

                            Paul's knowledge of "The Gospel", as distinct from "The Gospels", is
                            adequate reason for the passages you have quoted. This does not mean
                            that I do not think that the gospels are not early, though I do not
                            think that they are as early as some of the scholars you listed
                            propose.

                            A problem with any of these debates is that we are prone to defend
                            our own cherished positions, and I may just be guilty of that. The
                            reason being that I am about to publish a book which will argue that
                            all of the gospels were written in the sixties and that there was
                            much interaction between all four of them. For what it is worth, I
                            think Mark was written in late 64, John in late 68 and Mathew and
                            Luke, following John, in late 68/early 69. I hope to finish my work
                            in a couple of days, when I have I will post a detailed scenario to
                            the Synoptic-L list. I could be wrong, but it all seems to fit.

                            Yours in Christ,

                            Kym Smith
                            Adelaide
                            South Australia
                            khs@...
                          • Paul Schmehl
                            ... I think completely ignore might be too strong a statement, but let me ask you this. Given the pastoral nature of Paul s writings and the fact that he
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              >From: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@...>
                              >To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                              >Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 12:53 PM
                              >Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Early dating
                              >
                              >Assuming the early dating such as you've proposed, as a historian, I would
                              >certainly like to try to understand what would have motivated the Blessed
                              >Apostle Paul to completely ignore the gospels, that presumably would have
                              >been circulating widely all around him, in his voluminous correspondence?

                              I think "completely ignore" might be too strong a statement, but let me ask
                              you this. Given the pastoral nature of Paul's writings and the fact that he
                              was addressing churches he had already established, why would he need to
                              reference the gospels? The gospels tell the story of Christ's birth, life,
                              death and resurrection. Paul's writings barely mention the first three and
                              focus on the latter. One could even argue that, for Paul, Jesus did not
                              become the Christ *until* his resurrection. (I do not believe this, but I
                              have seen it posited.) There's certainly enough references in the Pauline
                              corpus to show that he assumed a great deal of knowledge of gospel material
                              on the part of the recipients of his letters.

                              >Or perhaps these early gospels would not have been circulating widely, but
                              >instead kept secret?

                              I think that's rather far-fetched. I suspect the gospels traveled far and
                              fast, as soon as copies could be made.

                              >As to Torrey's question, how about the genealogies?

                              I don't understand what you're referring to here.

                              Paul Schmehl pauls@...
                              p.l.schmehl@...
                              http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
                            • Kevin Anderson
                              Mr. Kuchinsky wrote: I m sure if numerous citations ... It seems to me that the absence of clear citation of John (or any Gospel) may have to do not with the
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Mr. Kuchinsky wrote:
                                I'm sure if numerous citations
                                > from Jn were to be found in Pauline letters, this would have been seen as
                                > solid evidence for Jn being very early. As the matter stands, no citations
                                > from Jn are found in Pauline letters, so this may cast doubt on Jn being
                                > very early.
                                >

                                It seems to me that the absence of clear citation of John (or any Gospel)
                                may have to do not with the existence of any of the Gospels (esp. John) but
                                with their relative standing among the various Christian communities. They
                                may have been written, and known, but not yet considered "canon" and
                                therefore not universally binding beyond those communities of which they
                                were formative.
                                The LXX/OT, on the other hand, could be cited specifically, exactly because
                                it was considered universally authoritative.

                                > Pauline letters are long and deal with all sorts of subjects. If their
                                > author knew the gospels, he could be expected to cite from them.

                                Not necessarily. Elsewhere (Galatians, e. g.) Paul is at great pains to
                                demonstrate his independence from other authorities. He speaks of tradition
                                received and passed on
                                but even then he does not appeal to authority other than his own.

                                And we are still left with the possible allusions to Johannine thought
                                outlined by Mr. Lupia, I believe, in another post.
                                I don't think we should dismiss them too quickly. Certainly the writer and
                                communities of the book of Revelation knew and could quote the LXX--yet in
                                that book the presence of the LXX is most profoundly expressed not in direct
                                citation but in the hundreds of allusions to OT ideas, themes, and passages.
                                Clear citations to the OT are remarkably rare for a book steeped in OT
                                imagery and thought.

                                Thank you for a wonderful discussion!

                                Respectfully,

                                Kevin Anderson, STM
                                forks@...
                              • Maluflen@aol.com
                                In a message dated 7/11/2001 2:11:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jamesfrankmcgrath@yahoo.com writes:
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jul 11, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 7/11/2001 2:11:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                  jamesfrankmcgrath@... writes:

                                  << Although I'm wary of veering too far off John here, I
                                  thought I'd mention a few points in relation to the
                                  recent discussion of Gospel dating. It is important to
                                  remember that Paul is mainly (or perhaps exclusively,
                                  depending on the authenticity of Ephesians and
                                  Colossians) writing to churches that are known to him.
                                  He is thus not repeating the basic foundational
                                  teachings that he would offer when he planted a
                                  church. These presumably included an account of who
                                  Jesus was, what he did and some of what he taught.
                                  Paul clearly alludes to elements of the Jesus
                                  tradition that are also found in the Synoptics (his
                                  use of 'abba, Father' is one significant example). So
                                  I don't think that the Pauline letters can help us one
                                  way or another concerning the date of the written
                                  Gospels. Living in an oral culture, Paul would have
                                  been able to reproduce with great fidelity elements of
                                  the Jesus tradition regardless of whether they were to
                                  be found in writing somewhere yet or not.

                                  Gosh, it is great to have enough free time to actually
                                  participate in these discussions for a change!
                                  >>

                                  Your comments are so on target that I wish you more often had the free time
                                  in question. I don't think the writings of Paul we have can be taken to prove
                                  that Paul did not know the written Gospels at all. On the other hand, it is
                                  difficult to make the case on the basis of the Pauline letters that he
                                  certainly did.

                                  Leonard Maluf
                                • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                  ... So this is precisely the point, Leonard. I m sure if numerous citations from Jn were to be found in Pauline letters, this would have been seen as solid
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Jul 11, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 Maluflen@... wrote:

                                    > I don't think the writings of Paul we have can be taken to prove that
                                    > Paul did not know the written Gospels at all. On the other hand, it is
                                    > difficult to make the case on the basis of the Pauline letters that he
                                    > certainly did.

                                    So this is precisely the point, Leonard. I'm sure if numerous citations
                                    from Jn were to be found in Pauline letters, this would have been seen as
                                    solid evidence for Jn being very early. As the matter stands, no citations
                                    from Jn are found in Pauline letters, so this may cast doubt on Jn being
                                    very early.

                                    Pauline letters are long and deal with all sorts of subjects. If their
                                    author knew the gospels, he could be expected to cite from them.

                                    The way some people are trying to deal with this problem may lead one to
                                    think that the Good News were already old news for Paul, so he couldn't be
                                    bothered to use gospel texts in his pastoral instruction. But I think the
                                    Good News are not old news, either then or now. So what if "everyone
                                    already knew this stuff"? Everyone certainly knows the gospels now, but
                                    they are still used in pastoral instruction.

                                    Regards,

                                    Yuri.

                                    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

                                    It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
                                    to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
                                  • Robert Raphael
                                    Yuri I was wondering if you have an opinion as to whether any significance can be attributed to St. Paul s failure to mention the discovery of the empty tomb
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Jul 11, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Yuri

                                      I was wondering if you have an opinion as to whether any significance can be
                                      attributed to St. Paul's failure to mention the discovery of the empty tomb
                                      of Christ.

                                      Crossan in his book "The Birth of Christianity" advances the argument that
                                      there was no burial of Jesus.

                                      Do you have an opinion on this ?

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...>
                                      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                                      <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 2:08 PM
                                      Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Early dating


                                      >
                                      >On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 Maluflen@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      >> I don't think the writings of Paul we have can be taken to prove that
                                      >> Paul did not know the written Gospels at all. On the other hand, it is
                                      >> difficult to make the case on the basis of the Pauline letters that he
                                      >> certainly did.
                                      >
                                      >So this is precisely the point, Leonard. I'm sure if numerous citations
                                      >from Jn were to be found in Pauline letters, this would have been seen as
                                      >solid evidence for Jn being very early. As the matter stands, no citations
                                      >from Jn are found in Pauline letters, so this may cast doubt on Jn being
                                      >very early.
                                      >
                                      >Pauline letters are long and deal with all sorts of subjects. If their
                                      >author knew the gospels, he could be expected to cite from them.
                                      >
                                      >The way some people are trying to deal with this problem may lead one to
                                      >think that the Good News were already old news for Paul, so he couldn't be
                                      >bothered to use gospel texts in his pastoral instruction. But I think the
                                      >Good News are not old news, either then or now. So what if "everyone
                                      >already knew this stuff"? Everyone certainly knows the gospels now, but
                                      >they are still used in pastoral instruction.
                                      >
                                      >Regards,
                                      >
                                      >Yuri.
                                      >
                                      >Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
                                      >
                                      >It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
                                      >to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                      >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                      >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                      >
                                      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • Jgabriel22@aol.com
                                      The question of wether Paul knew and/or alluded to the Gospel of John I think must be seen from a greater perspective; one that goes beyond the wittness of
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Jul 11, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        The question of wether Paul knew and/or alluded to the Gospel of John I think
                                        must be seen from a greater perspective; one that goes beyond the wittness of
                                        Paul. Let us say that there were some lines in Paul's letters that smacked of
                                        a Johannine tint, whether direct allusions to the Gospel or ideas steeped in
                                        Johannine theology. The question must be asked then why is it that; accepting
                                        Paul as a witness to John; we find the next next witness or group of
                                        witnesses to the fourth gospel in the writings of the heretical and orthodox
                                        writers of the mid second to late second century? The evidence in Ignatius is
                                        simply not strong, Polycarp, non existent, so too in 1 or 2 Clement and the
                                        Sheperd in its entirety! Papias is tantilizing but his only work has been
                                        lost so that his remaining fragments of testimony are of no use. We may begin
                                        with Justin but the one quote used as proof is weak on a number of points,
                                        (see page 257-58 of ACIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS and also page 391 on another
                                        possible allusion to John.) If one wants to see the use of John then one must
                                        look at Valentinus, Heracleon, Theodotus, and Ptolemy who had in front of
                                        them a form of a document which came to be called The Gospel according to
                                        John. So too the Epistula Apostolorum, Polycrates of Ephesus, Theophylus of
                                        Antioch, Tatian and the Montanists. These voices are all from the latter part
                                        of the second century.

                                        And so let us once again take the beginning point seriously, Paul knew and
                                        alluded to John in some of his letters. Yet it takes another hundred years
                                        before another Christian writer (whether heretic or orthodox) decides the
                                        work is worthy enough to quote, to use to edify other Christians concerning
                                        the new revelation of Jesus. It's just too much of stretch.

                                        I think many of those who study early Christianity seem to be studying it in
                                        a vacum. If one makes a statement about any of the early Church fathers that
                                        statement must be made in a way that it concretely relates to all the works
                                        which have managed to come down to us through the centuries. We should look
                                        for grouth in any thought, any belief. the evidence for anything can rarely
                                        be examined without looking forwards and backwards. And if we think something
                                        appears at point D but is missing until point H we must explain that abscence
                                        in points E through G.

                                        I've never dared to respond to any of the great discussions here because I am
                                        no scholar but on this point I have done enough reading where I thought my
                                        two cents might be worth something. Thank you in advance for indulging a
                                        non-scholar.

                                        Roberto Scrofani
                                      • Peter Hofrichter
                                        To Roberto Scrofani Yes, you are right with your idea that Paul is secundary to the johannine tradition. I would rather like to say: to the hellenistic
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Jul 12, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          To Roberto Scrofani
                                          Yes, you are right with your idea that Paul is secundary to the
                                          "johannine" tradition. I would rather like to say: to the
                                          "hellenistic" tradition. He must have known at least the Logos-Hymn,
                                          which was something like a first hellenistic Creed. Although Paul
                                          wants to speak mainly about the post-existence of Christ he starts
                                          from the background of already florishing pre-existence speculation.
                                          The Hymn in the letter to the Philippians is a witness. And although
                                          Paul does not use the term "Logos" in the line with Philo and the
                                          Logos-Hymn/Creed he knows and appreciates this idea. The question is:
                                          But why then does he and the whole synoptic tradition avoid the term
                                          "Logos"? In fact they don't. But they have definitely changed its
                                          meaning from Jesus to the spoken Word of Jesus. A witness is the
                                          parable of the sower in its oldedst form, that of Mark, where Jesus
                                          himself says that (not the sower but) the seed in this picture is the
                                          Logos. If we think forward, we are reminded of the "logos
                                          spermaticos" of Justinus Martyr. Only Justinus picks up both
                                          traditions, that ofthe Logos of Philo and of the original meaning of
                                          the Logos-Hymn/Creed and that of its Pauline/Synoptic
                                          re-interpretation. But this re-interpretation dates already back to
                                          the first stratum of the Gospel of "John", which Paul might have
                                          known. Alredy in the Gospel of "John" the Logos is re-interpreted as
                                          the Word that Jesus hears from the Father and speaks to the people.
                                          This and other re-interpretations of the Logos-Hymn/Creed may have
                                          been a purpos and aim of this first gospel. The theological reason
                                          could have been to show Jesus no longer as the Logos of God but as
                                          God himself. May be, Paul did not totally identify with this
                                          development. He avoids the term Logos for Jesus but he continues to
                                          differentiate between God and the Kyrios Jesus whom he contiues to
                                          see more in the philonic line.
                                          Cordially P.H.
                                          --
                                        • charles scott
                                          Yuri: For years I accepted late dates, assuming that there was solid scholarship and good reasoning for assigning those dates. Now, I am not so sure. You seem
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Jul 12, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Yuri:

                                            For years I accepted late dates, assuming that there
                                            was solid scholarship and good reasoning for assigning
                                            those dates.

                                            Now, I am not so sure. You seem to be arguing that on
                                            the basis of the lack of quoting a written work, that
                                            Paul has no knowledge of the Gospel writers or of an
                                            oral tradition.

                                            If there is any accuracy in Luke�s accounts of Paul�s
                                            beginnings,
                                            Paul received the Oral tradition at Antioch. He was
                                            tutored by Ananias and worked with Barnabas for a
                                            year.

                                            His purpose for writing to churches who have already
                                            received the
                                            Gospel would seem to make it obvious he need not quote
                                            from
                                            any written Gospels, for the tradition had already
                                            been received hy
                                            those churches and was the �living voice� in those
                                            churches.

                                            I don�t believe an argument from silence is sufficient
                                            reason to
                                            postulate that Paul is ignorant of the oral or
                                            written Gospels.
                                            Let me illustrate from my own experience.

                                            I graduated from Seminary in 1959.

                                            During days of student ministry in the 1950�s and
                                            through about
                                            mid 1965 I made frequent references to Shakespeare�s
                                            Hamlet
                                            and McBeth in sermons. I had been reading Shakespeare
                                            since
                                            about age 14 and read everything of Shakeskpeare�s in
                                            print by age 18.

                                            By now, all of those sermons from the pre-1965 era of
                                            my ministry have
                                            long been burned or in the garbage dumps. The only
                                            copies of my
                                            essays and sermons that are extant date back about 10
                                            years and are either in my filing cabinet, or in
                                            computer storage, or on the internet. To the best of
                                            my recollection, during the last 35 years, due to
                                            the decline of American literacy, I have made no
                                            explicit quotations
                                            from Shakespeare in either my essays or sermons.

                                            A generation from now, persons who have no memory of
                                            me, and no
                                            other information than my literary output, using your
                                            methods would conclude that I had no knowledge of
                                            Shakespeare.

                                            Again, in the 1960�s-1970�s, I preached often from
                                            Isaiah and the
                                            minor prophets because of my concern for social
                                            justice which was
                                            a major issue in churches that were faced with
                                            overcoming
                                            segregation and other problems in our country. In
                                            that period,
                                            I wrote a syllabus for the study of the minor
                                            prophets.

                                            In the last 10 years, the only reference to the minor
                                            prophets
                                            would be one sermon in which I read Obadiah, and one
                                            in which
                                            I quoted from Amos. Again, using your methods, the
                                            conclusion
                                            would be that I was ignorant of the the minor prophets
                                            except for
                                            Obadiah and Amos.


                                            Paul does not have a large extant literary output.
                                            The entire New Testament is slim indeed, and any one
                                            in ministry and teaching has produced far more in a 20
                                            or 30 year period. It seems to me that with the
                                            paucity of his extant materials, the fact that he
                                            writes about themes common to the Gospels and
                                            enlarges on them would be sufficient reason to accept
                                            the testimony of the church fathers as to their
                                            attribution of times and authorship since they were
                                            closer to the
                                            events than we are.

                                            At least, the testimony of the fathers should give us
                                            pause in
                                            declaring what Paul did not know about the oral or
                                            written tradtion.

                                            Charles R. Scott
                                            St. Paul�s Anglican Church
                                            Cincinnati, Ohio
                                          • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                            Dear friends, I would like to thank all the posters who responded to my query. My intention was not really to raise the whole big and very complicated issue of
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Jul 13, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dear friends,

                                              I would like to thank all the posters who responded to my query. My
                                              intention was not really to raise the whole big and very complicated issue
                                              of dating Jn. Especially Roberto Scrofani below has raised all the related
                                              and very valid issues that also need to be considered in this context.

                                              Clearly, there are different views on the subject of dating Jn that are
                                              held by various listmembers. Originally, my only concern was to point out
                                              the necessity of trying to understand the seeming silence of Paul about Jn
                                              in the context of its very early dating as has been proposed by some
                                              scholars.

                                              Now various people have replied with their possible explanations, so now
                                              my original concern has been addressed. Whether or not these explanations
                                              are satisfactory, this will be judged by each member for themselves, I'm
                                              sure.

                                              Again, thank you all for an interesting discussion.

                                              Best wishes,

                                              Yuri.

                                              Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

                                              I doubt, therefore I might be.

                                              On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 Jgabriel22@... wrote:

                                              > The question of wether Paul knew and/or alluded to the Gospel of John
                                              > I think must be seen from a greater perspective; one that goes beyond
                                              > the wittness of Paul. Let us say that there were some lines in Paul's
                                              > letters that smacked of a Johannine tint, whether direct allusions to
                                              > the Gospel or ideas steeped in Johannine theology. The question must
                                              > be asked then why is it that; accepting Paul as a witness to John; we
                                              > find the next next witness or group of witnesses to the fourth gospel
                                              > in the writings of the heretical and orthodox writers of the mid
                                              > second to late second century? The evidence in Ignatius is simply not
                                              > strong, Polycarp, non existent, so too in 1 or 2 Clement and the
                                              > Sheperd in its entirety! Papias is tantilizing but his only work has
                                              > been lost so that his remaining fragments of testimony are of no use.
                                              > We may begin with Justin but the one quote used as proof is weak on a
                                              > number of points, (see page 257-58 of ACIENT CHRISTIAN GOSPELS and
                                              > also page 391 on another possible allusion to John.) If one wants to
                                              > see the use of John then one must look at Valentinus, Heracleon,
                                              > Theodotus, and Ptolemy who had in front of them a form of a document
                                              > which came to be called The Gospel according to John. So too the
                                              > Epistula Apostolorum, Polycrates of Ephesus, Theophylus of Antioch,
                                              > Tatian and the Montanists. These voices are all from the latter part
                                              > of the second century.
                                              >
                                              > And so let us once again take the beginning point seriously, Paul knew
                                              > and alluded to John in some of his letters. Yet it takes another
                                              > hundred years before another Christian writer (whether heretic or
                                              > orthodox) decides the work is worthy enough to quote, to use to edify
                                              > other Christians concerning the new revelation of Jesus. It's just too
                                              > much of stretch.
                                              >
                                              > I think many of those who study early Christianity seem to be studying
                                              > it in a vacum. If one makes a statement about any of the early Church
                                              > fathers that statement must be made in a way that it concretely
                                              > relates to all the works which have managed to come down to us through
                                              > the centuries. We should look for grouth in any thought, any belief.
                                              > the evidence for anything can rarely be examined without looking
                                              > forwards and backwards. And if we think something appears at point D
                                              > but is missing until point H we must explain that abscence in points E
                                              > through G.
                                              >
                                              > I've never dared to respond to any of the great discussions here
                                              > because I am no scholar but on this point I have done enough reading
                                              > where I thought my two cents might be worth something. Thank you in
                                              > advance for indulging a non-scholar.
                                              >
                                              > Roberto Scrofani
                                            • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                              ... Well, Robert, 1Cor 15:4 does mention Jesus being raised on the third day , so this may certainly be taken as a reference to the empty tomb, since the two
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Jul 13, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Robert Raphael wrote:

                                                > Yuri
                                                >
                                                > I was wondering if you have an opinion as to whether any significance
                                                > can be attributed to St. Paul's failure to mention the discovery of
                                                > the empty tomb of Christ.

                                                Well, Robert, 1Cor 15:4 does mention Jesus being raised "on the third
                                                day", so this may certainly be taken as a reference to the empty tomb,
                                                since the two concepts are clearly related. And yet, some have proposed
                                                that this verse was a later interpolation.

                                                > Crossan in his book "The Birth of Christianity" advances the argument
                                                > that there was no burial of Jesus.

                                                I don't think it can be supposed that there was no burial of Jesus. On the
                                                other hand, many scholars did suggest that Jesus was taken down from the
                                                Cross on the same day as he was crucified, and buried in the common grave
                                                with others convicted to death. This version seems to be in accordance
                                                with what we know about similar proceedings in Israel.

                                                My own views on this subject are in agreement with the views of Alfred
                                                Loisy, as expressed especially in his later works.

                                                Loisy, Alfred Firmin (1857-1940), The Origins of the New Testament (Les
                                                origines du Nouveau Testament), London: G. Allen and Unwin. 1950.

                                                Loisy, Alfred Firmin (1857-1940), The birth of the Christian religion (La
                                                naissance du Christianisme), London: G. Allen & Unwin. 1948.

                                                Basically, he proposed that the earliest views on this subject were those
                                                of Jewish-Christian Ebionites, who were Adoptionists, and probably
                                                believed in the spiritual resurrection. According to those views, Jesus,
                                                an exemplary and righteous man, would have been resurrected, and
                                                designated by God as the coming Messiah at the moment of his death on the
                                                Cross. What happened to his body, in a sense, was not so important for
                                                these early believers. Also, this would have been the original
                                                quartodeciman tradition that was not co-ordinated in any way with the
                                                Sunday resurrection (since 14 Nissan falls every year on a different day
                                                of the week).

                                                According to Loisy, the Sunday Easter, together with a materialistic
                                                understanding of the resurrection, and a number of other Gentile-oriented
                                                changes, would have been introduced officially for the first time in Rome
                                                around 135 ce. Accordingly, the gospels would have been re-edited at the
                                                same time to reflect all that.

                                                But of course Loisy explains all this better than I, and in much more
                                                detail.

                                                Best wishes,

                                                Yuri.

                                                Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

                                                Churchill's Commentary on Man:
                                                "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
                                                of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
                                              • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                                ... It seems more likely to me that the earliest view was that of a bodily resurrection since this accords more with the views of the Pharisees on the
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Jul 13, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...> wrote:

                                                  > Loisy ... proposed that the earliest views on this
                                                  > subject were those of Jewish-Christian Ebionites,
                                                  > who were Adoptionists, and probably believed in the
                                                  > spiritual resurrection. According to those views,
                                                  > Jesus, an exemplary and righteous man, would have
                                                  > been resurrected, and designated by God as the
                                                  > coming Messiah at the moment of his death on the
                                                  > Cross. What happened to his body, in a sense, was
                                                  > not so important for these early believers. Also,
                                                  > this would have been the original quartodeciman
                                                  > tradition that was not co-ordinated in any way with
                                                  > the Sunday resurrection (since 14 Nissan falls every
                                                  > year on a different day of the week).
                                                  >
                                                  > According to Loisy, the Sunday Easter, together with
                                                  > a materialistic understanding of the resurrection,
                                                  > and a number of other Gentile-oriented changes,
                                                  > would have been introduced officially for the first
                                                  > time in Rome around 135 ce. Accordingly, the gospels
                                                  > would have been re-edited at the same time to
                                                  > reflect all that.

                                                  It seems more likely to me that the earliest view was
                                                  that of a bodily resurrection since this accords more
                                                  with the views of the Pharisees on the resurrection,
                                                  and the early Jesus movement seems close to the
                                                  Pharisees on this point, among other points.

                                                  It also seems to me that Greek dualism and its
                                                  denigration of matter would more likely have tended
                                                  toward a 'spiritualization' of the resurrection
                                                  belief.

                                                  Jeffery Hodges

                                                  =====
                                                  Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                                  Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                                  447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                                                  Yangsandong 411
                                                  South Korea

                                                  __________________________________________________
                                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                                  Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
                                                  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                                                • Robert Raphael
                                                  Thanks for your reply. I will try to get a hold of the two books by Loisy that you mentioned. Robert Raphael ... From: Yuri Kuchinsky To:
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Jul 13, 2001
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Thanks for your reply. I will try to get a hold of the two books by Loisy
                                                    that you mentioned.

                                                    Robert Raphael
                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...>
                                                    To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                                                    <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                                                    Date: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:21 PM
                                                    Subject: [John_Lit] Loisy & the empty tomb (Re: Early dating


                                                    >
                                                    >On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Robert Raphael wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >> Yuri
                                                    >>
                                                    >> I was wondering if you have an opinion as to whether any significance
                                                    >> can be attributed to St. Paul's failure to mention the discovery of
                                                    >> the empty tomb of Christ.
                                                    >
                                                    >Well, Robert, 1Cor 15:4 does mention Jesus being raised "on the third
                                                    >day", so this may certainly be taken as a reference to the empty tomb,
                                                    >since the two concepts are clearly related. And yet, some have proposed
                                                    >that this verse was a later interpolation.
                                                    >
                                                    >> Crossan in his book "The Birth of Christianity" advances the argument
                                                    >> that there was no burial of Jesus.
                                                    >
                                                    >I don't think it can be supposed that there was no burial of Jesus. On the
                                                    >other hand, many scholars did suggest that Jesus was taken down from the
                                                    >Cross on the same day as he was crucified, and buried in the common grave
                                                    >with others convicted to death. This version seems to be in accordance
                                                    >with what we know about similar proceedings in Israel.
                                                    >
                                                    >My own views on this subject are in agreement with the views of Alfred
                                                    >Loisy, as expressed especially in his later works.
                                                    >
                                                    >Loisy, Alfred Firmin (1857-1940), The Origins of the New Testament (Les
                                                    >origines du Nouveau Testament), London: G. Allen and Unwin. 1950.
                                                    >
                                                    >Loisy, Alfred Firmin (1857-1940), The birth of the Christian religion (La
                                                    >naissance du Christianisme), London: G. Allen & Unwin. 1948.
                                                    >
                                                    >Basically, he proposed that the earliest views on this subject were those
                                                    >of Jewish-Christian Ebionites, who were Adoptionists, and probably
                                                    >believed in the spiritual resurrection. According to those views, Jesus,
                                                    >an exemplary and righteous man, would have been resurrected, and
                                                    >designated by God as the coming Messiah at the moment of his death on the
                                                    >Cross. What happened to his body, in a sense, was not so important for
                                                    >these early believers. Also, this would have been the original
                                                    >quartodeciman tradition that was not co-ordinated in any way with the
                                                    >Sunday resurrection (since 14 Nissan falls every year on a different day
                                                    >of the week).
                                                    >
                                                    >According to Loisy, the Sunday Easter, together with a materialistic
                                                    >understanding of the resurrection, and a number of other Gentile-oriented
                                                    >changes, would have been introduced officially for the first time in Rome
                                                    >around 135 ce. Accordingly, the gospels would have been re-edited at the
                                                    >same time to reflect all that.
                                                    >
                                                    >But of course Loisy explains all this better than I, and in much more
                                                    >detail.
                                                    >
                                                    >Best wishes,
                                                    >
                                                    >Yuri.
                                                    >
                                                    >Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
                                                    >
                                                    >Churchill's Commentary on Man:
                                                    >"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
                                                    >of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                    >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                    >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                                    >
                                                    >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                                    ... Well, Jeffery, here the question emerges whether or not the HJ was indeed so close to the views of the Pharisees. The evidence in this area is not so
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Jul 15, 2001
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
                                                      > Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > > Loisy ... proposed that the earliest views on this
                                                      > > subject were those of Jewish-Christian Ebionites,
                                                      > > who were Adoptionists, and probably believed in the
                                                      > > spiritual resurrection. According to those views,
                                                      > > Jesus, an exemplary and righteous man, would have
                                                      > > been resurrected, and designated by God as the
                                                      > > coming Messiah at the moment of his death on the
                                                      > > Cross. What happened to his body, in a sense, was
                                                      > > not so important for these early believers. Also,
                                                      > > this would have been the original quartodeciman
                                                      > > tradition that was not co-ordinated in any way with
                                                      > > the Sunday resurrection (since 14 Nissan falls every
                                                      > > year on a different day of the week).
                                                      > >
                                                      > > According to Loisy, the Sunday Easter, together with
                                                      > > a materialistic understanding of the resurrection,
                                                      > > and a number of other Gentile-oriented changes,
                                                      > > would have been introduced officially for the first
                                                      > > time in Rome around 135 ce. Accordingly, the gospels
                                                      > > would have been re-edited at the same time to
                                                      > > reflect all that.
                                                      >
                                                      > It seems more likely to me that the earliest view was
                                                      > that of a bodily resurrection since this accords more
                                                      > with the views of the Pharisees on the resurrection,
                                                      > and the early Jesus movement seems close to the
                                                      > Pharisees on this point, among other points.

                                                      Well, Jeffery, here the question emerges whether or not the HJ was indeed
                                                      so close to the views of the Pharisees. The evidence in this area is not
                                                      so clear. As you may recall, recently I've presented quite a bit of
                                                      evidence indicating the affinities between early Christians and the
                                                      Samaritans, which in turn have been linked with the Sadducees.

                                                      In this connection, the question of the earliest gospel also would come
                                                      up. Although most people currently hold the view that either Mk or Mt was
                                                      the earliest, also there's quite a lot of evidence that Lk, with its well
                                                      known affinities for Samaritanism, may preserve the earliest tradition.
                                                      Myself, I think proto-Lk was the earliest gospel.

                                                      > It also seems to me that Greek dualism and its
                                                      > denigration of matter would more likely have tended
                                                      > toward a 'spiritualization' of the resurrection
                                                      > belief.

                                                      And here one may ask if the Greek tradition is really dualist, or at least
                                                      if it's more dualist than the biblical tradition.

                                                      We may also recall that seemingly the most primitive Jewish tradition, as
                                                      reflected by the Sadducees, did not accept the materialistic understanding
                                                      of the resurrection.

                                                      Best wishes,

                                                      Yuri.

                                                      Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

                                                      I doubt, therefore I might be.
                                                    • Emmanuel Fritsch
                                                      ... On this topic, and if you read french, you may get the work of Boismard : Faut-il encore parler de résurrection? , Marie-Emile Boismard, Paris, Ed. du
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Jul 24, 2001
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        > > According to Loisy, the Sunday Easter, together with
                                                        > > a materialistic understanding of the resurrection,
                                                        > > and a number of other Gentile-oriented changes,
                                                        > > would have been introduced officially for the first
                                                        > > time in Rome around 135 ce. Accordingly, the gospels
                                                        > > would have been re-edited at the same time to
                                                        > > reflect all that.
                                                        >
                                                        > It seems more likely to me that the earliest view was
                                                        > that of a bodily resurrection since this accords more
                                                        > with the views of the Pharisees on the resurrection,
                                                        > and the early Jesus movement seems close to the
                                                        > Pharisees on this point, among other points.
                                                        >
                                                        > It also seems to me that Greek dualism and its
                                                        > denigration of matter would more likely have tended
                                                        > toward a 'spiritualization' of the resurrection
                                                        > belief.

                                                        On this topic, and if you read french, you may get
                                                        the work of Boismard :

                                                        "Faut-il encore parler de "résurrection?" ,
                                                        Marie-Emile Boismard, Paris, Ed. du Cerf, 1995.

                                                        a+
                                                        manu
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.