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

Re: [John_Lit] Re: Early dating

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    ... I find this rather puzzling considering copying practices in the various scribal centers at Corinth, Thessaloniki, Ephesus, Antioch, Ascalon, Alexandria,
    Message 1 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/
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.