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

Re: [John_Lit] Re: Early dating

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
      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 2 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
        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/
      • 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 3 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
          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 4 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
            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 5 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
              --- 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 6 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
                ----- 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 7 of 26 , Jul 10, 2001
                  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 8 of 26 , Jul 11, 2001
                    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 9 of 26 , Jul 11, 2001
                      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 10 of 26 , Jul 11, 2001
                        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 11 of 26 , Jul 11, 2001
                          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 12 of 26 , Jul 12, 2001
                            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 13 of 26 , Jul 12, 2001
                              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 14 of 26 , Jul 13, 2001
                                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 15 of 26 , Jul 13, 2001
                                  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 16 of 26 , Jul 13, 2001
                                    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 17 of 26 , Jul 13, 2001
                                      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 18 of 26 , Jul 15, 2001
                                        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 19 of 26 , Jul 24, 2001
                                          > > 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.