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

Pericopae adulterae (with correction): was Question

Expand Messages
  • John Lupia
    Act in haste repent in leisure. I noticed some lines were left out in the draft I sent in; regarding the portion below. Apologies for the need to resubmit it,
    Message 1 of 29 , Feb 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Act in haste repent in leisure. I noticed some lines
      were left out in the draft I sent in; regarding the
      portion below. Apologies for the need to resubmit it,
      but I think the thesis is very worthwhile.



      As Mason points out further still (Ant. 13:294) shows
      how severe they were in meting out punishment, very
      much in line with the pericopae adulterae. In this
      respect it is not only tenable but highly plausible
      that the Pharisees and Zealots who trapped the mulier
      adultera into a confrontational setting were meting
      out justice they knew could not be refuted by the
      Sadducees since it was in keeping with their very
      policy. Consequently, the dilemma was all the more
      emotionally and politically charged to a feverish
      pitch when Jesus took the bull by the horns and
      quelled the whole affair by simply staing: "Let he who
      is among you without sin cast the first stone." (John
      8:7).

      I am presenting this thesis to Bruce Morrill and the
      editorial board of the IGNTP to consider the pericopae
      adulterae for inclusion in the edition we are
      undertaking. Let's see what happens. Even if it
      continues in a limbo state serious Johannine
      researchers should give this text consideration. Text
      critics are always far behind, an issue that is off
      topic for the list but one many should be aware of.

      All the best,
      John

      =====
      John N. Lupia, III
      31 Norwich Drive
      Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
      Phone: (732) 341-8689
      Email: jlupia2@...
      Editor, Roman Catholic News
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
      http://taxes.yahoo.com/
    • Christopher Skinner
      John Lupia wrote: Do you see the logical possibility that ASQENWN may signify that he was very weak and feeble? Do you see the logic to the fact that being
      Message 2 of 29 , Feb 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        John Lupia wrote:

        Do you see the logical possibility that ASQENWN may signify that he was very
        weak and feeble? Do you see the logic to the fact
        that being raised from the dead, in this case, does
        not mean being raised to eternal life. Consequently,
        Thomas, do you see the logical possibility that
        Lazarus may have been a very old man who was weak and
        feeble who died? Jesus raised him from the dead, and
        he may have lived for some brief span of time, and
        possibly died around the time that Jesus was crucified
        and rose. So, therefore, it does not necessary follow
        that Lazarus was alive in the post resurrection early
        Church community.


        Has it occurred to you that you are arguing completely from silence? I would suggest that your solution is as lacking in substance as the view you are attempting to critique.

        Regards,


        Chris Skinner
        The Catholic University of America


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John Lupia
        Chris: Has it occurred to you that you are arguing completely from silence? John: By definition, an inductive argument holds that the premises provide, or at
        Message 3 of 29 , Mar 1 7:48 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Chris:
          Has it occurred to you that you are arguing completely
          from silence?

          John:
          By definition, an inductive argument holds that the
          premises provide, or at least, appear to provide some
          degree of support, but less than complete support for
          the conclusion arrived at. The point or crux of such
          an argument is to give reasons that support some
          conclusion. An argument commits a fallacy when the
          reasons offered do not support the conclusion.
          Therefore, in this case you are making a fallacy of
          distraction, the variety of which is known as an
          argumentum ad ignorantiam; since you have neither
          identified the proposition in question, nor have you
          argued that it may be true even though we don't know
          whether it is or isn't, something which I have shown:
          QED. Moreover, and for the sake of pellucidity: the
          burden of proof is a fallacy when it is placed on the
          wrong side. Alternately, when a lack of evidence for
          side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in
          which the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
          Consequently, your statement borders on �Poisoning the
          Well�.


          See Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to
          Logic. 8th Edition. (Macmillan, 1990): 93.

          With warm regards,
          John

          =====
          John N. Lupia, III
          31 Norwich Drive
          Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
          Phone: (732) 341-8689
          Email: jlupia2@...
          Editor, Roman Catholic News
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

          __________________________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
          http://taxes.yahoo.com/
        • Thomas W Butler
          On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:30:56 -0600 fmmccoy ... Frank, I m fascinated by what you are saying. I like your questions and I can see
          Message 4 of 29 , Mar 1 3:00 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:30:56 -0600 "fmmccoy" <FMMCCOY@...>
            writes:
            >
            > You posit the thought sequence of Lazarus--> Eleazar-->
            > High Priest--> Temple Priesthood, so that Lazarus comes
            > to represent the temple priesthood.
            >
            > The longer the through sequence required, ISTM, the less likely
            > it becomes. So, ISTM, it is more likely that Lazarus represents
            > a real High Priest than that he represents an abstraction,
            > i.e., the temple priesthood.
            >
            > Indeed, there was a High Priest named Eleazar who had two
            > sisters: one named Martha and the other of unknown name.
            > Might not they be Martha and Mary, the two sisters of Lazarus?
            > Further, he had a brother named Simon (Simeon). Might he
            > not be the Simon, nicknamed the Leper, who, according to
            > Mark, owned the house in Bethany where the supper had
            > taken place?

            Frank,

            I'm fascinated by what you are saying.

            I like your questions and I can see where you are going with this.

            It seems to me that if a historical connection can be made
            between the figure of Lazarus and the High Priest Eleazar to
            whom you refer, the case can still be made that the writer(s)
            of the Fourth Gospel are using that figure figuratively :-) The
            text itself indicates that GROUPS of *Jews* followed Mary, heard
            the call of Jesus to Lazarus, and some of them became disciples.

            > The individual I have in mind is Eleazar, the son of Boethus,
            > who was appointed High Priest for a while by Archelaus. If he
            > was Lazarus, then, c. 30 CE, he would have been an old man.
            >
            > There was a daughter of Boethus, named Martha, who is
            > mentioned in the Talmud (Gittim 56a), and who died of
            > starvation during the Roman siege of Jerusalem.
            >
            > In addition, there was a daughter of Boethus, of unknown name,
            > who married a High Priest named Matthias (see Antiquities, Book
            > XVII, Chap. VI, Sect 4, where, Josephus relates, Matthias was a
            > brother in law of a son of Boethus named Joazar.).
            >
            > Finally, there was a son of Boethus named Simeon (Simon),
            > who lived for an incredible length of time--for Josephus has
            > him attaining the high priesthood for the first time c. 20 BCE
            > (see Ibid., Book XV, Chap. IX, sect. 3), and then (long after
            > losing it c. 5 BCE) re-gaining it briefly around 41 CE (Ibid.,
            > Book XIX, Chap. VI, Sect. 2).
            >
            > So, not only does it take a shorter thought sequence for
            > Lazarus to represent a real High Priest than it does for him
            > to represent the temple priesthood, but we know of an actual
            > High Priest, Eleazar bar Boethus, who matches everything we
            > know about Lazarus. The conclusion: It is more likely that
            > Lazarus represents a real High Priest named Eleazar bar
            > Boethus than that he represents the temple priesthood.
            >
            > If Lazarus be Eleazar bar Boethus, then at least three members
            > of the high priestly aristocracy had been followers of Jesus: this
            > Eleazar, his sister named Martha, and his sister who is unnamed
            > by Josephus but named Mary by John.

            Frank, my theory, as you know, is that Mosaic oracles are used
            as signs in the Fourth Gospel. I suspect that a Mosaic scholar
            of high quality would need to have participated in the writing of
            the gospel. The most prominent one named in the text is
            Nicodemus. He is paired with Joseph of Arimathea, who is
            identified as a secret disciple of Jesus in Jn. 19: 38-39.

            This opens the possibility that there may have been more than
            one secret disciple of Jesus, and that persons belonging to what
            you call the priestly aristocracy (what I think is meant by the
            gospel writer(s) when he/she/they make reference to *the Jews*)
            were among them.

            Craig Evans (in James Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea
            Scrolls, the Anchor Bible Reference Library, Doubleday, 1992, p240-
            253) writes a whole chapter on Opposition to the Temple. Evans
            sites Josephus in describing the Temple's great wealth and the
            political power of the ruling priests, especially the High Priest
            (Apion 2.185-87; 2.194; 20.181, 206-7). He also sites the
            Testament of Moses and the Tosephta and Talmuds where
            there are accounts of High Priests sending violent men to take
            away by force the offerings rightly belonging to lesser priests.

            One of these latter references includes these lines: *Woe to me
            because of the house of Boethus. Woe to me because of their
            staves. Woe is me because of the house of Kathros. Woe is me
            because of their pen. Woe is me because of the house of Hanin
            [=the family of Annas; cf. John 18: 13]. Woe is me because of
            their whispering. Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael ben
            Phabi. For they are high priests, and their sons [are] treasurers,
            and their sons-in-law [are] supervisors, and their servants come
            and beat us with staves.* (p. 240)

            If this is the same Boethus to whom you are referring, it hardly
            seems likely that this powerful theif would have become a
            disciple of the Jesus who cleansed the temple, driving the money
            changers out with a whip!

            What you offer seems to support the idea that priests were
            being abused, even to the point of starving at the gates of the
            temple as I suggested in my exegesis of the parable by Jesus
            as reported in the Gospel of Luke. This particular historical
            character, however, seems unlikely to have become a disciple
            of Jesus.

            It seems more likely that a caricature of this particular family
            was used to represent the corrupt priestly aristocracy and the
            power of Jesus to call even them out of their gilded tomb.

            I believe it was John Lupia who questioned what the historical
            situation might have been that would have caused temple priests
            to leave the temple. It seems to me that this level of corruption
            might be one such cause.

            > That all three, according to John, were loved by Jesus suggests
            > that Jesus was intimately acquainted with them. One possibility
            > is that, during a part of his "missing" years, he lived with them
            > at Bethany and was educated by them.

            Aren't you drawing an awful lot from the reference to Jesus' love?
            Following your suggestion that the simpler line is better, how about
            simply concluding that the message is that Jesus loved the people
            caught up in this corrupt priestly aristocracy or that he loved the
            priesthood?

            > (Tom)
            > > The sense I make of this, agreeing with Frank McCoy, is that the
            > > "death" from which Jesus resurrects Lazarus is spiritual death.
            > > (I go even further than Frank does, suggesting that the temple
            > > priesthood's spiritual life has died and that the tomb where
            > > Lazarus is when Jesus arrives is actually the temple. The temple
            > > priests come out of the temple, either following Mary of Bethany
            > > -Jn. 11: 31- or in response to the call of Jesus -Jn. 11: 43. Some
            > > of those who come out become disciples -Jn. 11: 45.
            >
            > (Frank)
            > Well, at least we agree on one point :-)
            >
            > Our initial division is over the nature of "Lazarus". I take "Lazarus"
            > to be a real person undergoing a spiritual resurrection from being
            > spiritually dead--a rebirth of the soul alone: which rebirth liberates
            > the soul from its dependence on the body (the tomb). You take
            > "Lazarus" to be a group of temple priests who undergo a spiritual
            > resurrection from a spiritual death in which they come out of the
            > temple (the tomb).
            >
            > I concede that you might be correct in thinking that the tomb where
            > Lazarus is when Jesus arrives represents the temple. In 11:38, this
            > tomb is said to be a cave (stelaion). This might allude to LXX Isaiah
            > 33:16, "He shall dwell in a high cave (stelaiw) of a strong rock".
            This
            > passage, in turn, might refer to the temple on Mount Zion. If so, then
            > there is a tomb--> cave--> temple thought sequence which would
            > support your interpretation of the tomb representing the temple.

            Ah! Another point on which we can agree! :-) This could get dangerous!
            >
            > The "proof of the pudding" of the line of interpretation you are
            > using would be evidence, in early Christian literature, to support
            > the conclusion of this line of interpretation: which is that a body
            > of priests came out of the temple, either following Mary of Bethany
            > or in response to a call by Jesus, with some of them even becoming
            > disciples of Jesus. Do you have such evidence?

            No, I don't. I wonder if you or John Lupia or someone else on the
            list could suggest where I (or we) might look for it.

            Yours in Christ's service,
            Tom Butler

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • John Lupia
            Thomas Butler: I believe it was John Lupia who questioned what the historical situation might have been that would have caused temple priests to leave the
            Message 5 of 29 , Mar 2 1:28 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Thomas Butler:
              I believe it was John Lupia who questioned what the
              historical situation might have been that would have
              caused temple priests to leave the temple. It seems
              to me that this level of corruption might be one such
              cause.

              John:

              Dear Thomas:

              I do not question the historical situation, which
              existed during the public ministry of Jesus, I was
              only pointing out critical sources that do reveal what
              it was. Let me make myself clear by explaining what
              the situation was.

              Saddukaioi = Tzaddikim = �the upright or righteous
              men� the chief Kohanim in the Jerusalem Temple. This
              cultic or sectarian group of Kohanim was so called
              drawn from the second oracle of Habakkuk (c. 597 BC)
              A TZADDIK shall live by his faith, (Habakkuk 2:4).
              Tzaddik [also spelled tsaddik or tsaddiq] is both and
              adjective (righteous) and a noun (one who is just).
              This group of chief-priests was Epicurean in their
              philosophical outlook on politics, life and religion.
              Consequently, they were materialists who rejected the
              ideas of spirit or incorporeal being, such as angels,
              and denied the resurrection since it implied spirit
              and life to dead inanimate matter, something that was
              very unscientific much like the skeptics today in the
              so-called Historical Jesus research. They also strove
              to eliminate the Jewish Apocalyptic literature, which
              Jews and Protestants today called the LXX Apocrypha
              and epigraphy and pseudoepigraphy, but which has been
              perpetuated in Jewish tradition with the misnomer
              �Oral Tradition�. Jewish Apocalyptic literature was
              considered very dangerous because it pointed to a
              Messiah who would lead what they thought was a
              political revolution. Being materialistic thinkers
              they translated this into a Messiah-Revolutionary who
              would throw off Roman suppression. This they saw as
              suicidal since they knew all too well that the Jewish
              nation could never endure such a revolutionary effort
              and would be completely defeated. They were right
              about that, but wrong about the import of Jewish
              Apocalyptic literature. Jesus continuously taught the
              true meaning of what this literature meant, counter to
              what they believed.

              The Tzaddikim composed their own literature to counter
              the Book of the LXX, and when Jesus began to teach
              they began to compose literature against him. Tzaddik
              literature depicts acts in opposition to a ma'aseh,
              i.e., a similar story, about a rasha, or a wicked man.
              (See Targum J. Numbers 31:8, Yalkut Shimoney 785,
              Zohar II 194 A).

              Fleer and Afterman tell us: �All distinction depends
              on the man who separates light from darkness. He
              knows, and he can interpret the great disparity
              between stories. For the stories of Tzaddikim come
              from the Side of Holiness and are the result of
              prayer. As is taught concerning the verse: "Tell me,
              please, of all the great things Elisha has done"
              (Kings II 8:4), the Talmud (Megilla 27) explains,
              "Elisha accomplished 'great things', miracles, through
              his power of prayer." But the stories told of r'shaim
              are rooted in wicked plans, deceptions, magic; those
              things that come from the Other Side of Holiness.�

              �Hence only one who knows how to separate light from
              darkness, good from evil, can differentiate between
              stories.� (cf. Jerusalem Talmud, Brachot, perak 5,
              halacha 2.) see Gedaliah Fleer and Alan Afterman,
              �Tales of the Tzaddikim,� B'or Ha'Torah (1986)
              Article online
              http://hasidicstories.com/Articles/Hasidic_Theories/tzaddikim.html#3n

              The Tzaddikim literature that began to circulate after
              the crucifixion and death of Jesus was propaganda to
              refute the earliest kerygma of the apostolic community
              in its very first few years. This I have identified
              as the Gospel of Thomas, a cacographic portrait of
              Jesus and the apostles meant to deride them and
              dissuade others from believing in him. I have already
              shown how the various logia in this corpus are ribald
              puns meant to elicit guffaws from the public who heard
              them.

              St. Luke�s prologue clearly shows that the many other
              writings were cacography which were intended to
              dissuade Theophilus, the High Priest in Jerusalem AD
              37-41. Consequently, Luke must necessarily be the
              first written Gospel since he tells us that he has
              gone over everything from the beginning. Since Luke
              did not characterize the Passion Narrative with
              complete accuracy: Jesus is not crowned with thorns,
              scourged and doe not carry his cross, St. John
              immediately seized the opportunity to compose his
              Gospel to add to that of Luke in order to establish a
              fuller and more complete picture and portrait of Jesus
              and the teachings conveyed by him in speeches which
              John had copies of suggesting that he was a
              stenographer who made the records. This too I have
              pointed out before that, he took down the lengthy
              speeches that comprise the Last Supper.

              St. John�s Gospel does not mention the Tzaddikim by
              name in translation in the Greek, but rather, uses the
              Greek DIKAIOS in John 7:24 "Do not judge according to
              appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

              Tzaddik Nistar (pl. Tzadikim nistarim) = concealed
              righteous ones. This is how St. John characterizes
              both Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38-9).

              Tzaddik v'ra lo = a righteous man on whom evil
              befalls. This is how St. John characterizes Jesus and
              omits the account of the martyrdom of John the
              Baptist, because, it was already given by Luke and
              John wished to focus not on him, but on Jesus.


              The other leading sect were the P'rushim = Pharisees,
              commentators on Halakhah, hence called scribes,
              lawyers and teachers. These opposed the Tzaddikim and
              accepted the Jewish literature of the later books in
              the LXX. They maintained belief in spirits and angels
              and held the resurrection from the dead and also the
              Messianic Son of God who would redeem all of Israel.

              It was sometime after the Council of Jerusalem in AD
              54 when disciples of St. John the Baptizer were found
              at Ephesus and were rebuked for not baptizing using
              the Trinitarian formula that St. Matthew wrote his
              Gospel that gives this in Mt 28:19.

              As the Church began to make inroads into Rome and
              establish communities there it was then that St. Mark
              composed his Gospel to appeal to the Gentile audience
              in terms that made the theology of Jesus
              understandable to them.

              This is the thesis I had arrived at over a decade ago,
              but I still need to complete the manuscript. For the
              past 3 years I have been posting the crux of this
              thesis and have profited from many discussions to help
              tweak and focus the essential material.


              With warm regards,
              John


              =====
              John N. Lupia, III
              31 Norwich Drive
              Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
              Phone: (732) 341-8689
              Email: jlupia2@...
              Editor, Roman Catholic News
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

              __________________________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
              http://taxes.yahoo.com/
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.