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

Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31 and the BD

Expand Messages
  • Bill Bullin
    Dear James Small clues as to the identity of the BD may well lie in asking some historical and sequential questions concerning the night Jesus was betrayed
    Message 1 of 25 , May 11 9:51 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear James

      Small clues as to the identity of the BD may well lie in asking some
      historical and sequential questions concerning the 'night Jesus was
      betrayed' (the betrayal was central to the later formulaic designation of
      the institution), not by simply harmonising the Gospel accounts but by
      asking some penetrating questions of them all and sorting out a realistic
      sequence of events.

      *Preparation* Jesus wanted to eat with his apostles / disciples as his hour
      of destiny drew close. This was far from easy. He would be vulnerable and
      so would they. It would involve him being in one location in the city for
      several hours at night. He was at risk of arrest in private and he seems to
      have known that one of the twelve intended to betray him, perhaps he had
      been tipped off or perhaps he had been reading the behaviour of one of the
      twelve; he may have known exactly who, and he may have suspected the
      disciples would gossip between themselves if the location was common
      knowledge between them. The arrangements were necessarily clandestine, two
      disciples meet a man carrying a waterpot.Who exactly would have been present
      at the 'last supper', would the mother of Jesus have been excluded (she was
      certainly in Jerusalem), apostles, other disciples, or both? This is a
      crucial question since it effects the size of the building where the meal
      would take place. I suspect it was not restricted to the twelve and would
      have needed to be reasonably large, perhaps located in the wealthy south
      western quarter of the city, reasonably near the high priest's house.
      Presumably there would have been few such venues available to Jesus, but no
      more than half a dozen and we know of only one that was specifically ever
      used, the home of John Mark, a natural meeting place, large enough to
      require at least one servant, probably more, (Acts 11:12). In all events the
      place of the meeting was strictly confidential; two of the twelve were
      despatched to make final arrangements that Jesus had set up with some key
      disciples who lived in Jerusalem and owned a suitable venue (John
      13:20???!!!).

      *Joseph and his Brothers*
      Would there have been servants present? Jesus was at risk of arrest and he
      intended to meet in private for a considerable period of time; might not any
      house servants have been 'given the night off' for reasons of
      confidentiality? In this case others would be serving. Who would have been
      placed in a position of honour at the table? Luke seems to tell us that this
      would have been no inconsequential issue among the twelve; the theme of
      sibling rivalry seems to have dominated the evening from their perspective;
      Jesus was feeling isolated and vulnerable.

      My own line of questioning and reasoning lies in Josephian typology. The
      issue dividing Jesus and the twelve seems to me to be reminiscent of Joseph
      and his brothers. Joseph and Benjamin were the youngest, despised brothers,
      Joseph, like a sufferering servant, was despised, rejected and betrayed,
      sold into slavery, yet he was exalted to the right hand of Pharaoh. Would
      not this biblical narrative have been playing through Jesus' own mind too?

      We have the Father, the sons, a chosen son, (an 'seph' type), betrayal into
      captivity for money, we have Benjamin, the youngest beloved brother,
      replacing the first son of his mother in Joseph's absence, we have a young
      man fleeing naked in the garden like Joseph from Potiphar' s wife, we have
      Joseph the prisoner serving both the baker and the butler, we have the bread
      of the baker and the cup of the wine taster with a subsequent hanging
      (Judas) and restoration (Peter), and a parallel hanging and restoration
      (Jesus), we have a royal cup, we have the hope of a family re-union in the
      Kingdom. Later we even have an embalming, an empty tomb, an exodus and the
      translation of bones from the old kingdom to the new.

      Luke tells us that Jesus, in the context of apostolic rivalry, rudely
      interupts the meal and the conversation, (Lk 22:24). He probably first
      delivered some straight talk on the nature of leadership, status,
      servanthood and youthfulness (Lk 22:26), and insisted on one last climactic
      acted parable.

      The first became last, the youngest, the oldest; swinging form refusal to
      have his feet washed at all to a demand for total immersion, Peter is all
      the time seeking pre-emminence. It is as if Jesus is looking for a
      word-picture that will penetrate the pre-eminent Apostle's thick skin; the
      image of the crowing, prancing noisy cockrel at dawn provided the image, the
      image precedes the prediction; the cockrel, first indeed as dawn breaks, but
      last indeed the master denying Peter, crest-fallen, breast fallen, throat
      choked, eyes streaming, now flooding like the empty boastful words of the
      night of betrayal. But the young servant disciple, is elevated to the seat
      of honour that no one dare claim for himself. He is Benjamin at Joseph's
      banquet of agape; indeed a beloved disciple. The uncomfortable betrayer,
      seeking to leave is offered the bread of the butler and with it a dismissal.
      The wine is shared by Joseph, the fruitful bough (Genesis 49:22; 4G 15:1),
      the blood of a New Covenant. The two share this bond at least despite age
      and youth, restoration and witness, martyrdom and old age.

      If the BD is the elevated youngest, not originally at table at all, but
      elevated as first and at Jesus' breast post-footwashing, a Benjamin type,
      then we have to ask about the youth fleeing in the Marcan Gesemane account.
      William Lane, The Gospel of Mark, NICNT (1974), 526-8, is valuable on Mk
      14:51-52:

      "In the search for a clue to the identity of this individual, the linguistic
      parallel with Gen. 39:12 LXX has been observed...but it is the similarity in
      situation rather than intended allusion that accounts for the merely formal
      parallelism. Of greater importance is the fact that in the LXX, the Jewish
      Apocrypha and Josephus, the term used by Mark designates young men who are
      exceptionally strong and valiant, or faithful and wise."

      It is as if the Marcan account mentions a re-appearance of the youthful BD,
      who slipped after the apostolic band and their leader from the upper room,
      fleeing like the wind, Joseph like. To abandon this approach is surely to
      introduce a semi-naked youth who just happens to be wandering around both
      the Garden of Gethsemane late at night, (presumably without even a torch),
      and the Marcan Gospel account, for no apparent reason! That there is an
      allusion to Joseph fleeing Potiphar's wife, and to the youth as a
      Benjamin-like replacement for Joseph, seems more than probable. He seems to
      re-appear in 4G at the high priest's palace, at the cross, where in Jesus
      absence he is awarded the Benjamin type role, and at the tomb, outrunning
      Peter. That he would have matured into the kind of person capable of writing
      4G some 30 years later (aged say 45) seems to me entirely credible; that he
      may have eventually died in Ephesus (in say 90 aged 75) seems
      reasonable.That he was 'strong, valiant, faithful, and wise' is by no means
      undermined by the possibility that he may have turned back from a joint
      mission with Barnabas and Paul, since the reason John Mark abandoned this
      mission is not known. That his testimony was a potentially invaluable asset
      to them would make absolute sense if he was present at the last supper,
      Gesemane, the high priest's palace, the tomb etc. That the 'younger'
      eventually became known as the 'elder' is entirely in keeping with the
      reversal theme as too is the designation of disciples as 'children' in 1
      John. It is interesting that the designation is: 'Beloved Disciple' and not
      'Beloved Apostle'. In summary the 'belovedness' appears to lie in identity
      and 'despised youthfulness reversed', a truly agape type belovedness, and
      not in any whimsical partiality.

      Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex). However controversial the
      snapshot, we are inevitably reminded of Matthew 25: 43 and of Mel Gibson
      too, at least in terms of our own hermeneutic horizons.

      > An interesting suggestion, but I'm probably not alone in desiring more
      > information. What evidence do you have that John Mark was present at
      > this meal, was the youngest of the disciples, and perhaps most
      > importantly, that although disciples could not be asked to untie their
      > teacher's sandals, they could be given the duty of footwashing?
      >
      > Looking forward to hearing more about your interesting reconstruction!
      >
      > James McGrath

      >
    • Martin Edwards
      ... designation of ... realistic ... It cannot be assumed that there was any betrayal. It is not the primary meaning of paradidwmi . Certainly it
      Message 2 of 25 , May 13 11:03 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bullin"
        <bill.bullin@u...> wrote:
        > Dear James
        >
        > Small clues as to the identity of the BD may well lie in asking some
        > historical and sequential questions concerning the 'night Jesus was
        > betrayed' (the betrayal was central to the later formulaic
        designation of
        > the institution), not by simply harmonising the Gospel accounts but by
        > asking some penetrating questions of them all and sorting out a
        realistic
        > sequence of events.
        <snip>

        It cannot be assumed that there was any betrayal. It is not the
        primary meaning of "paradidwmi". Certainly it does mean that in the
        Gospels, but in St Paul it can be taken at its face value, as the
        normal word for "arrest". Judas was the name of one of Jesus's
        brothers and the paradigmatic name for a Jew. The author of the first
        Gospel (leaving that issue aside for the moment) could have
        interpolated the betrayal story as part of the campaign to write out
        the importance of Jesus's family in the period after his death.

        Martin Edwards BA(UEA) PGCE(Hull) RT(England and Wales)
        Hodge Hill High School, Birmingham.
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... So far as I can see from a review of the data in LSJ, delivered over or delivered up not arrest is the primary meaning that PARADIWMI has when
        Message 3 of 25 , May 13 1:50 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Martin Edwards wrote:

          > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bullin"
          > <bill.bullin@u...> wrote:
          > > Dear James
          > >
          > > Small clues as to the identity of the BD may well lie in asking some
          > > historical and sequential questions concerning the 'night Jesus was
          > > betrayed' (the betrayal was central to the later formulaic
          > designation of
          > > the institution), not by simply harmonising the Gospel accounts but by
          > > asking some penetrating questions of them all and sorting out a
          > realistic
          > > sequence of events.
          > <snip>
          >
          > It cannot be assumed that there was any betrayal. It is not the
          > primary meaning of "paradidwmi". Certainly it does mean that in the
          > Gospels, but in St Paul it can be taken at its face value, as the
          > normal word for "arrest".

          So far as I can see from a review of the data in LSJ, "delivered over" or
          "delivered up" not "arrest" is the "primary meaning" that PARADIWMI has when
          used with reference to persons.

          Can you tell me what leads you to believe otherwise?

          > Judas was the name of one of Jesus's
          > brothers and the paradigmatic name for a Jew.

          Excuse me, but what? And if it **was** the "paradigmatic name" (?) (have you
          studied 1st century Palestinian prosopography?), why need we think, as you seem
          to do, that there would be only one Jew named Judas among Jesus' followers who
          would bear that name?

          > The author of the first
          > Gospel (leaving that issue aside for the moment) could have
          > interpolated the betrayal story as part of the campaign to write out
          > the importance of Jesus's family in the period after his death.

          Again, pardon me, but what?

          Jeffrey
          --

          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

          1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
          Chicago, IL 60626

          jgibson000@...
        • Bill Bullin
          Dear Martin Any proposed similarity between Jesus and Joseph in respect of being *sent* by their respective F(f)athers , to their own but their own receiving
          Message 4 of 25 , May 14 3:30 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Martin

            Any proposed similarity between Jesus and Joseph in respect of being *sent*
            by their respective F(f)athers , to their own but their own receiving them
            not (I interpret sentness through the associated sociological concepts of
            status and dignity attached to the role of messenger, cf. Jn 13:20), but
            instead being sold by their nearest and dearest either out of hatred for his
            dreams and his words, or else injured pride and jealousy (Judas held the bag
            and was sufficiently close to recieve the dipped bread before my proposed
            status re-ordering), or else for mere financial gain (Genesis 37: 4, 8,11,
            26), instigated by Judah, one of ten others (with perhaps the slightest hint
            of an allusion to Cain and Abel, so central to Johannine 'brotherhood'
            (siblinghood) and 'holy seed theology'), might of course be dismissed as a
            late interpolation, for whatever reason, if it were not for the formula
            found in 1 Corinthians 11:23ff. You are therefore absolutely correct to
            challenge the meaning of the Greek PAREDIDOTO in this context. Personally I
            presume 11:23a means that the formula was handed on through solid oral
            testimony, not necessarily in Greek, quite possibly in Aramaic; I am also
            content to shelter under the wings of the translators and liturgical formula
            for the present.

            > It cannot be assumed that there was any betrayal. It is not the
            > primary meaning of "paradidwmi". Certainly it does mean that in the
            > Gospels, but in St Paul it can be taken at its face value, as the
            > normal word for "arrest".

            >Judas was the name of one of Jesus's
            > brothers and the paradigmatic name for a Jew. The author of the first
            > Gospel (leaving that issue aside for the moment) could have
            > interpolated the betrayal story as part of the campaign to write out
            > the importance of Jesus's family in the period after his death.

            If I follow you correctly, by 'first Gospel', I presume you mean "Mark" and
            I further presume you are arguing that this document was a principle source
            for "Matthew" and "Luke" therefore setting in motion a train of writing
            based on a supposed interpolation in order to undermine the role of the
            family of Jesus since one of his brothers or half brothers or step brothers
            shared this apparently common name. I had understood that the name Jew was
            established in the period of the Babylonian exile, presumably because the
            southern tribe of Judah had not been subject to an earlier conquest and
            exile. If Judah was the betrayer of Joseph, then Judah was also the
            deliverer: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the rulers staff
            from between his feet..." How the term 'Jew' or 'Hebrew' was actually used
            in and between the existing and emerging sects of Second Temple Judaism in
            and around the Med. is a different matter.

            All kinds of speculation, venemous manipulation and ideological prejudice
            have been attached to the figure of Judas in the course of 'Christian'
            history, of principle concern, that of anti-semitism, specifically that
            Judas was a type for all Jews who reject the Christian Messiah. The
            monotheistic religions eminating from the Middle East share at least this in
            common, they live under a solemn calling to love the Creator Parent, the
            neighbour and the stranger in their midst, a calling that needs must be
            fundamentally enshrined not merely in clay jar conventions, constitutions
            and treaties but in hearts and minds and souls and limbs, lest with Cain, we
            all should perish in arrogance and the conceited denial of common Parenthood
            / Siblinghood, rather than live in the audacity of hope and belief, (Wisdom
            10:3-4; Martin Luther King, Nobel Prize acceptance speech; Jurgen Moltmann).
            Nevertheless, "..even in the beginning, when arrogant giants were perishing,
            the hope of the world took refuge on a raft, and guided by your hand left to
            the world the seed of a new generation, for blessed is the wood by which
            righteousness comes", (Wisdom 14:6-7, cf. I Thess. 4:9; Romans 12:10; I
            Peter 1:22-23; Judith Lieu, The Theology of the Johannine Epistles, (1991),
            CUP, 33-38; David Wenham, The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel: Another Look,
            Tyn. Bul. 48 (1997): The Evidence from Paul, (4).
            >
            Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).

            PS Would Mel Gibson's Passion have been more *truly* Johannine if Jesus had
            been hooded in a pair of Roman pants; what, after all, is 'truth' as
            distinct from merely your ideology and mine? It is time for me to go see the
            film, if it is still showing anywhere.
          • Martin Edwards
            ... over or ... has when ... I was abbreviating a little, but one of the meanings in Liddell and Scott is handed over to justice . ... (have you ... as you
            Message 5 of 25 , May 15 7:11 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
              <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > > It cannot be assumed that there was any betrayal. It is not the
              > > primary meaning of "paradidwmi". Certainly it does mean that in the
              > > Gospels, but in St Paul it can be taken at its face value, as the
              > > normal word for "arrest".
              >
              > So far as I can see from a review of the data in LSJ, "delivered
              over" or
              > "delivered up" not "arrest" is the "primary meaning" that PARADIWMI
              has when
              > used with reference to persons.
              >
              > Can you tell me what leads you to believe otherwise?

              I was abbreviating a little, but one of the meanings in Liddell and
              Scott is "handed over to justice".
              >
              > > Judas was the name of one of Jesus's
              > > brothers and the paradigmatic name for a Jew.
              >
              > Excuse me, but what? And if it **was** the "paradigmatic name" (?)
              (have you
              > studied 1st century Palestinian prosopography?), why need we think,
              as you seem
              > to do, that there would be only one Jew named Judas among Jesus'
              followers who
              > would bear that name?

              Yes, there were probably quite a lot. The relevance is?
              >
              > > The author of the first
              > > Gospel (leaving that issue aside for the moment) could have
              > > interpolated the betrayal story as part of the campaign to write out
              > > the importance of Jesus's family in the period after his death.
              >
              > Again, pardon me, but what?
              >
              > Jeffrey
              > --

              After Jesus's execution the leadership of the movement was in
              Jerusalem, led by his brother James. In Acts that leadership is
              clearly accepted even by St Paul, though with ill grace, and his real
              attitude is shown in his letters. As the movement became more and
              more pagan, the leadership was wrested from these leaders, and James
              was eventually murdered in a riot in the Temple.

              Mart.
            • Martin Edwards
              ... Mark and ... source ... brothers ... No, as I said, I was leaving that on one side. I meant whichever it was . Regards, Mart.
              Message 6 of 25 , May 15 7:15 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bullin"
                <bill.bullin@u...> wrote:
                > If I follow you correctly, by 'first Gospel', I presume you mean
                "Mark" and
                > I further presume you are arguing that this document was a principle
                source
                > for "Matthew" and "Luke" therefore setting in motion a train of writing
                > based on a supposed interpolation in order to undermine the role of the
                > family of Jesus since one of his brothers or half brothers or step
                brothers
                > shared this apparently common name.

                No, as I said, I was leaving that on one side. I meant "whichever it
                was".

                Regards,

                Mart.
              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                ... More than a little, as the entry -- which I ve reproduced below -- shows. ... Yes, but this is listed as the 3rd of its meanings , where as betray is
                Message 7 of 25 , May 15 6:37 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Martin Edwards wrote:

                  > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
                  > <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > > It cannot be assumed that there was any betrayal. It is not the
                  > > > primary meaning of "paradidwmi". Certainly it does mean that in the
                  > > > Gospels, but in St Paul it can be taken at its face value, as the
                  > > > normal word for "arrest".
                  > >
                  > > So far as I can see from a review of the data in LSJ, "delivered
                  > over" or
                  > > "delivered up" not "arrest" is the "primary meaning" that PARADIWMI
                  > has when
                  > > used with reference to persons.
                  > >
                  > > Can you tell me what leads you to believe otherwise?
                  >
                  > I was abbreviating a little,

                  More than a little, as the entry -- which I've reproduced below -- shows.

                  > but one of the meanings in Liddell and
                  > Scott is "handed over to justice".

                  Yes, but this is listed as the 3rd of its "meanings", where as "betray" is
                  listed as the 2nd

                  More importantly, neither LSJ nor the actual instances of Hellenistic usage of
                  PARADIDWMI indicate that PARADID "handing over to justice" was ordinarly
                  thought to be identical to or synonmous with "arrest", an action and a concept
                  that was conveyed by words other than PARADIDWMI -- like APAGW, DIALAMBANO, and
                  PROANARPAZW. It is something that is done **after** an arrest.

                  In any case, I see nothing in LSJ -- or for that matter in BDAG -- than
                  supports your claim that "arrest" was the "normal" meaning of PARADIDWMI, let
                  alone that "arrest" was the sense with which Paul uses it.

                  >
                  > > > Judas was the name of one of Jesus's
                  > > > brothers and the paradigmatic name for a Jew.
                  > >
                  > > Excuse me, but what? And if it **was** the "paradigmatic name" (?)
                  > (have you
                  > > studied 1st century Palestinian prosopography?), why need we think,
                  > as you seem
                  > > to do, that there would be only one Jew named Judas among Jesus'
                  > followers who
                  > > would bear that name?
                  >
                  > Yes, there were probably quite a lot. The relevance is?

                  The relevance is that if there was more than one Judas among Jesus' disciples,
                  then your claim that the Judas who betrayed Jesus was Jesus' brother is not as
                  strong as you seem to think.

                  > > > The author of the first
                  > > > Gospel (leaving that issue aside for the moment) could have
                  > > > interpolated the betrayal story as part of the campaign to write out
                  > > > the importance of Jesus's family in the period after his death.
                  > >
                  > > Again, pardon me, but what?
                  > >
                  > > Jeffrey
                  > > --
                  >
                  > After Jesus's execution the leadership of the movement was in
                  > Jerusalem, led by his brother James. In Acts that leadership is
                  > clearly accepted even by St Paul, though with ill grace, and his real
                  > attitude is shown in his letters. As the movement became more and
                  > more pagan, the leadership was wrested from these leaders, and James
                  > was eventually murdered in a riot in the Temple.

                  Let's leave aside that James was not murdered by Christians and that at the time
                  of his death the movemen in Jerusalem does not seem to be "pagan", whatever
                  that means, may I ask how --even assuming that in his letters Paul mentions
                  Jesus' brother Judas (which he doesn't so far as I can see) -- this supports
                  your conspiracy/interpolation theory?

                  Are you actualy saying that it was not Judas Iscariot who arranged for the
                  "handing over of Jesus"? That it was Jesus' brother Judas? If so, why then
                  would those who wished to wrest the leadership of the Jerusalem community away
                  from Jesus family place the blame for Jesus "betrayal" upon Judas Iscariot. It
                  would be more in there interest to proclaim that Judas, the brother of Jesus was
                  the real culprit.

                  And then there's that little fact of the dissaciciation of the name of the
                  epitstle supposedly written by Jesus' brother from that of Judas Isacariot that
                  your conspiract theory doesn't explain.

                  Jeffrey

                  ********
                  paradidA'mi (late paradia-didA' (deid-) Tab.Defix.Aud.156.8 (Rome, iv/v A. D.)),

                  1. give, hand over to another, transmit, [paidion] tini Hdt.1.117 ; ta
                  entetalmena, of couriers, Id.8.98; kathaper lampada ton bion p. Pl. Lg.776b ,
                  etc.;

                  of sentinels, p. ton kA'dA'na Th.4.135 ; tAªn heA'thinAªn phulakAªn
                  Plu.Arat.7 ; tA'i paidi p. tAªn archAªn
                  Hdt.2.159 ; ta patria teuchea S.Ph.399 (lyr.);

                  of letters to the person addressed, X.Cyr. 8.6.17;

                  of a purchase to the buyer, Id.Oec.20.28;

                  of articles entered in an inventory by magistrates, IG12.324.2, etc.; in
                  Astrol., p. to etos Vett.Val.100.30 ,
                  Paul.Al.I.4;

                  of an argument, p. tini ton hexAªs logon Pl.Criti.106b ; p. tAªn proxenian
                  hand it down to one's posterity,
                  X.HG6.3.4; tAªn polin eudaimonestatAªn tois epigignomenois p. Isoc.8.94 ,
                  cf. Th.2.36, Pl.R.372d; p. tAªn
                  aretAªn

                  transmit, impart as a teacher, Id.Men.93c: c. inf., paidas sphi paredA'ke
                  tAªn glA'ssan ekmathein Hdt.1.73 ;
                  hAªn emAªi mAªtri paredA'ken trephein E.Or.64 ; p. tini tous neous didaskein
                  Pl.Lg.812a , cf. Ti.42d, al.

                  2. give a city or person into another's hands, tAªn Samon p. SulosA'nti
                  Hdt.3.149 ; allon es allAªn polin p. d.5.37;
                  esp. as a hostage, or to an enemy, deliver up, surrender, heA'uton KroisA'i
                  Id.1.45 , cf. 3.13, Th.7.86; tas
                  naus And.3.11 , etc.:

                  **with collat. notion of treachery, betray, X.Cyr.5.4.51, Paus.1.2.1; p. hopla
                  X.Cyr.5.1.28 , etc.;**

                  tuchAªi hauton p. commit oneself to fortune, Th.5.16; tais hAªdonais
                  heautAªn [tAªn psuchAªn] Pl.Phd.84a;
                  heautous [epithumiais] ib.82c:

                  without acc., give way, hAªdonAªi paradous Id.Phdr.250e .

                  3. give up to justice, etc., hAªntina mAªte . . paradounai exAªn Antipho 6.42 ;
                  p. tinas tA'i dikastAªriA'i And.1.17 ; tois hendeka paredothAª Lys.14.17 ; also
                  p. tina eis to desmA'tAªrion D.51.8 ; dethenta eis ton dAªmon X.HG1.7.3
                  (Pass.); epi krisei parededoto eis ton dAªmon D.49.9 : c. inf., p. tina
                  thanatA'i zAªmiA'sai Lys.22.2 ;

                  give up a slave to be examined by torture, Isoc.17.15, Test. ap.
                  D.45.61:--Pass., enklAªmati p. dub. l. in D.C.62.27: metaph., siA'pAªi kai
                  lAªthAªi paradotheis D.H.Pomp.3 .

                  4. hand down legends, opinions, etc., by tradition, phAªmAªn Pl.Phlb.16c ;
                  paradedomena kai muthA'dAª D.23.65 ; hoi paradedomenoi muthoi Arist.Po.1451b24
                  ; ho p. tropos Id.Pol. 1313a35 ; hoi paradedomenoi theoi the traditional gods,
                  Din.1.94; hAª oikia . . enkekA'miasmenAª paradedotai hAªmin Pl.Chrm.157e ;
                  dogmati paradothAªnai to be embodied in a decree, D.C.57.20.

                  b. teach doctrine, Ev.Luc.1.2, Sor.1.124, M.Ant.1.8, Philum.Ven.37.3,
                  Dam.Pr.154, 433, Paul.Aeg.6.50:--Pass., hotan [technAª] paradidA'tai
                  Arr.Epict.2.14.2 .

                  II. grant, bestow, kudos tisi Pi.P.2.52 : in pres. and impf., offer,
                  allow, hairesin
                  Id.N.10.83 .

                  2. c. inf., allow one to . . , Hdt.1.210, 6.103, al.: c. acc. rei, permit, ho
                  theos touto
                  ge ou paredidou Id.5.67 ; plAªgAªn . . paradotheisan eisidA'n a blow offered,
                  i. e.
                  opportunity of striking, E.Ph.1393: abs., tou theou paradidontos if he permits,

                  Hdt.7.18; Aªn hoi theoi paradidA'sin X.An.6.6.34 ; hopA's an hoi kairoi
                  paradidA'sin
                  Isoc.5.118 ; tAªs hA'ras paradidousAªs Plb.21.41.9 : less freq. in aor., potmou

                  paradontos Pi.P.5.3 ; hA's an ho daimA'n paradA'i D.60.19 .

                  III. hazard, tas psuchas huper tinos Act.Ap.15.26 .

                  >
                  >
                  > Mart.
                  >
                  > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                  > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  --

                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                  Chicago, IL 60626

                  jgibson000@...
                • Bob MacDonald
                  Does the history of baptism justify the question of those sent from the Pharisees (John 1:24)? It seems to imply that for John to be baptizing requires that he
                  Message 8 of 25 , May 15 10:38 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Does the history of baptism justify the question of those
                    sent from the Pharisees (John 1:24)?

                    It seems to imply that for John to be baptizing requires
                    that he be one of the three: Messiah, Elijah or the prophet.

                    Thanks

                    Bob

                    Bob MacDonald
                    http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
                    http://peleyah.ca
                  • Martin Edwards
                    ... disciples, ... is not as ... My claim, and I admit that it is only that, that the literary device of betrayal is being used to discredit Jesus s family is
                    Message 9 of 25 , May 16 12:12 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > > > > Judas was the name of one of Jesus's
                      > > > > brothers and the paradigmatic name for a Jew.
                      > > >
                      > > > Excuse me, but what? And if it **was** the "paradigmatic name" (?)
                      > > (have you
                      > > > studied 1st century Palestinian prosopography?), why need we think,
                      > > as you seem
                      > > > to do, that there would be only one Jew named Judas among Jesus'
                      > > followers who
                      > > > would bear that name?
                      > >
                      > > Yes, there were probably quite a lot. The relevance is?
                      >
                      > The relevance is that if there was more than one Judas among Jesus'
                      disciples,
                      > then your claim that the Judas who betrayed Jesus was Jesus' brother
                      is not as
                      > strong as you seem to think.

                      My claim, and I admit that it is only that, that the literary device
                      of betrayal is being used to discredit Jesus's family is not dependent
                      on whether there were other followers called Judas.

                      Mart.
                    • Martin Edwards
                      ... More likely that there was as yet no group known as Christians. Eisenman is far from proving his argument that the leader of the mob was Paul himself, or
                      Message 10 of 25 , May 16 12:29 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >
                        > Let's leave aside that James was not murdered by Christians.

                        More likely that there was as yet no group known as Christians.
                        Eisenman is far from proving his argument that the leader of the mob
                        was Paul himself, or that he is the same person as the shadowy Saul in
                        "The Jewish War", but it is an interesting line of thought unless,
                        sorry to labour this one, it contradicts the picture you and other
                        conscensus thinkers wish to form.

                        .........and that at the time
                        > of his death the movemen in Jerusalem does not seem to be "pagan",
                        whatever
                        > that means,

                        Predominantly non-Jewish. "Pagan" is not a cuss word to me.

                        ....... may I ask how --even assuming that in his letters Paul mentions
                        > Jesus' brother Judas (which he doesn't so far as I can see) --

                        I concur


                        .........this supports
                        > your conspiracy/interpolation theory?
                        >
                        > Are you actualy saying that it was not Judas Iscariot who arranged
                        for the
                        > "handing over of Jesus"? That it was Jesus' brother Judas? If so,
                        why then
                        > would those who wished to wrest the leadership of the Jerusalem
                        community away
                        > from Jesus family place the blame for Jesus "betrayal" upon Judas
                        Iscariot. It
                        > would be more in there interest to proclaim that Judas, the brother
                        of Jesus was
                        > the real culprit.
                        >
                        > And then there's that little fact of the dissaciciation of the name
                        of the
                        > epitstle supposedly written by Jesus' brother from that of Judas
                        Isacariot that
                        > your conspiract theory doesn't explain.
                        >
                        > Jeffrey
                        >
                        > ********

                        I am saying that there may have been no betrayal and no Judas
                        Iscariot. I do not argue that the interpolation was made by Paul, but
                        by a writer dependent on him. I do not claim to have proved any of
                        this,it is only a theory. I think you will agree that many posters
                        lack both your and my contextual knowledge and are too inclined to
                        accept Gospel narrative as fact. I obviously lack your depth of
                        scholarship, but our trajectories have been very different. I'm
                        enjoying Tcherikover, by the way, thanks for the tip.

                        Mart.
                      • Bill Bullin
                        Dear Martin How would you propose reading Acts 1:21 and 15:22-23 in the light of your analysis of I Corinthians 11:23 and given your dependence on Acts, as
                        Message 11 of 25 , May 16 2:43 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Martin

                          How would you propose reading Acts 1:21 and 15:22-23 in the light of your
                          analysis of I Corinthians 11:23 and given your dependence on Acts, as
                          indicated below? Incidentally, can anyone recommend the best and most
                          reasonably accessible resources for analysing and interpreting Hebrew,
                          Greek, and Latin names and multiple usage in the Second Temple period?

                          Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).

                          > After Jesus's execution the leadership of the movement was in
                          > Jerusalem, led by his brother James. In Acts that leadership is
                          > clearly accepted even by St Paul, though with ill grace, and his real
                          > attitude is shown in his letters. As the movement became more and
                          > more pagan, the leadership was wrested from these leaders, and James
                          > was eventually murdered in a riot in the Temple.
                          >
                          > Mart.
                        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                          ... Problem is -- is that you haven t shown that it **is** a literary device , let alone only a literary device, or that there would be any good reason for
                          Message 12 of 25 , May 16 8:57 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Martin Edwards wrote:

                            > > > > > Judas was the name of one of Jesus's
                            > > > > > brothers and the paradigmatic name for a Jew.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Excuse me, but what? And if it **was** the "paradigmatic name" (?)
                            > > > (have you
                            > > > > studied 1st century Palestinian prosopography?), why need we think,
                            > > > as you seem
                            > > > > to do, that there would be only one Jew named Judas among Jesus'
                            > > > followers who
                            > > > > would bear that name?
                            > > >
                            > > > Yes, there were probably quite a lot. The relevance is?
                            > >
                            > > The relevance is that if there was more than one Judas among Jesus'
                            > disciples,
                            > > then your claim that the Judas who betrayed Jesus was Jesus' brother
                            > is not as
                            > > strong as you seem to think.
                            >
                            > My claim, and I admit that it is only that, that the literary device
                            > of betrayal is being used to discredit Jesus's family is not dependent
                            > on whether there were other followers called Judas.
                            >

                            Problem is -- is that you haven't shown that it **is** a "literary device", let
                            alone "only" a literary device, or that there would be any good reason for those
                            whose aim was to discredit the Jerusalem leadership to employ it.


                            Jeffrey
                            --

                            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                            1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                            Chicago, IL 60626

                            jgibson000@...
                          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                            ... But didn t you claim that Paul s use of PARADIDWMI argued against taking him as one who thought there was a betrayal? If so, then your writer dependent on
                            Message 13 of 25 , May 16 9:33 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Martin Edwards wrote:

                              > >
                              > > Let's leave aside that James was not murdered by Christians.
                              >
                              > More likely that there was as yet no group known as Christians.
                              > Eisenman is far from proving his argument that the leader of the mob
                              > was Paul himself, or that he is the same person as the shadowy Saul in
                              > "The Jewish War", but it is an interesting line of thought unless,
                              > sorry to labour this one, it contradicts the picture you and other
                              > conscensus thinkers wish to form.
                              >
                              > .........and that at the time
                              > > of his death the movemen in Jerusalem does not seem to be "pagan",
                              > whatever
                              > > that means,
                              >
                              > Predominantly non-Jewish. "Pagan" is not a cuss word to me.
                              >
                              > ....... may I ask how --even assuming that in his letters Paul mentions
                              > > Jesus' brother Judas (which he doesn't so far as I can see) --
                              >
                              > I concur
                              >
                              > .........this supports
                              > > your conspiracy/interpolation theory?
                              > >
                              > > Are you actualy saying that it was not Judas Iscariot who arranged
                              > for the
                              > > "handing over of Jesus"? That it was Jesus' brother Judas? If so,
                              > why then
                              > > would those who wished to wrest the leadership of the Jerusalem
                              > community away
                              > > from Jesus family place the blame for Jesus "betrayal" upon Judas
                              > Iscariot. It
                              > > would be more in there interest to proclaim that Judas, the brother
                              > of Jesus was
                              > > the real culprit.
                              > >
                              > > And then there's that little fact of the dissaciciation of the name
                              > of the
                              > > epitstle supposedly written by Jesus' brother from that of Judas
                              > Isacariot that
                              > > your conspiract theory doesn't explain.
                              > >
                              > > Jeffrey
                              > >
                              > > ********
                              >
                              > I am saying that there may have been no betrayal and no Judas
                              > Iscariot. I do not argue that the interpolation was made by Paul, but
                              > by a writer dependent on him.

                              But didn't you claim that Paul's use of PARADIDWMI argued against taking him as
                              one who thought there was a betrayal? If so, then your "writer dependent on him"
                              was not dependent on him -- or at least didn't get the idea of betrayal from
                              Paul.

                              More importantly, especially if, as seems certain to me, Paul did speak of
                              Jesus' betrayal, you fail to note that Paul himself states plainly that what he
                              says about this is something that did not originate with him -- that it is
                              something that he received from others.

                              In other words, Paul testifies that the tradition of Jesus having been betrayed
                              is both **pre** and **non** Pauline.

                              > I do not claim to have proved any of
                              > this,it is only a theory. I think you will agree that many posters
                              > lack both your and my contextual knowledge and are too inclined to
                              > accept Gospel narrative as fact.

                              No, I don't agree, especially -- and please forgive me for being blunt -- about
                              your having more contextual knowledge than most posters here. Moreover I bridle
                              at the innuendo that the main or only reason that "many posters" here accept the
                              historicity of the betrayal by Judas is that they have approached the Gospel
                              records uncritically.

                              I am minded by this of my teacher George Caird's dictum that the scepticism that
                              you advocate about the historicity of the tradition that you think people are
                              "too inclined (by what?) to accept vs. the historical reconstruction you think
                              is true is generally born of, and goes hand in hand with great credulity .

                              > I obviously lack your depth of
                              > scholarship, but our trajectories have been very different.

                              Sorry, but how the difference in our trajectories makes your speculations worth
                              considering is beyond me.

                              BTW, have you given up your claims on what the "normal" meaning of PARADIDWMI
                              was?

                              Jeffrey
                              --

                              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                              1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                              Chicago, IL 60626

                              jgibson000@...
                            • Martin Edwards
                              ... device , let ... reason for those ... No, I haven t shown it conclusively, but I think I have gone a long way towards establishing motive. Those who wish
                              Message 14 of 25 , May 17 10:59 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >
                                > Problem is -- is that you haven't shown that it **is** a "literary
                                device", let
                                > alone "only" a literary device, or that there would be any good
                                reason for those
                                > whose aim was to discredit the Jerusalem leadership to employ it.
                                >
                                >
                                > Jeffrey
                                > --
                                >
                                > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                                >
                                > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                > Chicago, IL 60626
                                >
                                > jgibson000@c...

                                No, I haven't shown it conclusively, but I think I have gone a long
                                way towards establishing motive. Those who wish to discredit the
                                Jerusalem leadership, non-Jews, posit a betrayal by a figure symbolic
                                of both "the Jews" and Jesus's family. If there was such a project it
                                was successful, as the Roman Church began its drive for domination
                                after the revolt and actually installed a Bishop of its own in Jerusalem.

                                Mart.
                              • Martin Edwards
                                ... taking him as ... dependent on him ... betrayal from ... You have me nearly right but not quite. I do not think that Paul thought that there was any
                                Message 15 of 25 , May 17 11:06 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
                                  <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > I am saying that there may have been no betrayal and no Judas
                                  > > Iscariot. I do not argue that the interpolation was made by Paul, but
                                  > > by a writer dependent on him.
                                  >
                                  > But didn't you claim that Paul's use of PARADIDWMI argued against
                                  taking him as
                                  > one who thought there was a betrayal? If so, then your "writer
                                  dependent on him"
                                  > was not dependent on him -- or at least didn't get the idea of
                                  betrayal from
                                  > Paul.
                                  >
                                  You have me nearly right but not quite. I do not think that Paul
                                  thought that there was any betrayal, but a later writer read one into
                                  what he wrote. As for the invective, I shall not engage.

                                  Mart.
                                • Jack Kilmon
                                  ... From: Martin Edwards To: Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:59 PM Subject: Re:
                                  Message 16 of 25 , May 17 4:26 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: "Martin Edwards" <martin.edwards5@...>
                                    To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:59 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31 and the BD


                                    > >
                                    > > Problem is -- is that you haven't shown that it **is** a "literary
                                    > device", let
                                    > > alone "only" a literary device, or that there would be any good
                                    > reason for those
                                    > > whose aim was to discredit the Jerusalem leadership to employ it.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Jeffrey
                                    > > --
                                    > >
                                    > > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                                    > >
                                    > > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                    > > Chicago, IL 60626
                                    > >
                                    > > jgibson000@c...
                                    >
                                    > No, I haven't shown it conclusively, but I think I have gone a long
                                    > way towards establishing motive. Those who wish to discredit the
                                    > Jerusalem leadership, non-Jews, posit a betrayal by a figure symbolic
                                    > of both "the Jews" and Jesus's family. If there was such a project it
                                    > was successful, as the Roman Church began its drive for domination
                                    > after the revolt and actually installed a Bishop of its own in Jerusalem.


                                    Hold on a sec. My historical nose is getting tweaked. If you are talking
                                    about the 1st Jewish War, there was no "Roman Church" and members of the
                                    Desposynoi continued to be "Bishops" (wrong word, really) of the Jerusalem
                                    Assembly for decades. Shymeon led the group out of Jerusalem during the
                                    Roman destruction. He was followed by Judas, Zaccheus, Tobias, Benjamin,
                                    Yohanon, Mattaya, Philip, Seneca, Judas, Levi, Ephraim, Joseph and Judas at
                                    which time the Bar Kochba revolt began 148ish CE.

                                    Jack


                                    -----
                                    ______________________________________________

                                    Dakma daEBadton l'chad min hoLEYN AHi zeUOreh ly haw EBadton

                                    Jack Kilmon
                                    San Marcos, Tx
                                    jkilmon@...

                                    http://www.historian.net

                                    sharing a meal for free.
                                    http://www.thehungersite.com/
                                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                    ... And all of whom, according to Eusebius, were Hebrews and were circumcised and none of whom were installed by Rome . So Martin, if you have evidence to
                                    Message 17 of 25 , May 17 4:39 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Jack Kilmon wrote:

                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > From: "Martin Edwards" <martin.edwards5@...>
                                      > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                                      > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:59 PM
                                      > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31 and the BD
                                      >
                                      > > No, I haven't shown it conclusively, but I think I have gone a long
                                      > > way towards establishing motive. Those who wish to discredit the
                                      > > Jerusalem leadership, non-Jews, posit a betrayal by a figure symbolic
                                      > > of both "the Jews" and Jesus's family. If there was such a project it
                                      > > was successful, as the Roman Church began its drive for domination
                                      > > after the revolt and actually installed a Bishop of its own in Jerusalem.
                                      >
                                      > Hold on a sec. My historical nose is getting tweaked. If you are talking
                                      > about the 1st Jewish War, there was no "Roman Church" and members of the
                                      > Desposynoi continued to be "Bishops" (wrong word, really) of the Jerusalem
                                      > Assembly for decades. Shymeon led the group out of Jerusalem during the
                                      > Roman destruction. He was followed by Judas, Zaccheus, Tobias, Benjamin,
                                      > Yohanon, Mattaya, Philip, Seneca, Judas, Levi, Ephraim, Joseph and Judas at
                                      > which time the Bar Kochba revolt began 148ish CE.

                                      And all of whom, according to Eusebius, were "Hebrews" and were circumcised and
                                      none of whom were installed by "Rome".

                                      So Martin, if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

                                      Jeffrey
                                      --

                                      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                      Chicago, IL 60626

                                      jgibson000@...
                                    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                      ... But you do concede 1. that both he and those to whom he is writing in 1 Cor. are aware that Jesus was handed over/delivered up by someone on the night
                                      Message 18 of 25 , May 17 5:09 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Martin Edwards wrote:

                                        >
                                        > You have me nearly right but not quite. I do not think that Paul
                                        > thought that there was any betrayal, but a later writer read one into
                                        > what he wrote. As for the invective, I shall not engage.
                                        >

                                        But you do concede

                                        1. that both he and those to whom he is writing in 1 Cor. are aware that Jesus
                                        was "handed over/delivered up" by someone on the night before he died to those
                                        who subsequently put him to death, and

                                        2. that this tradition of Jesus being "handed over" to his executioners is not
                                        something that Paul invented

                                        yes?

                                        And given

                                        1. that PARADIDWMI did not mean "arrest", and

                                        2. that when used, as in 1 Cor, of a person who, as a result of his handing
                                        over, meets his death, the verb means "betrayal",

                                        why do you insist that the interpretation (interpolation?) that this "handing
                                        over" was a betrayal is something that is only later read into Paul's text?

                                        Was the work of this unknown, but "Pauline dependent" person who originated the
                                        betrayal theme known to Matthew? To Mark?

                                        Jeffrey

                                        >
                                        > Mart.
                                        >
                                        > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                        > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
                                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >

                                        --

                                        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                        1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                        Chicago, IL 60626

                                        jgibson000@...
                                      • Matthew Estrada
                                        Bob MacDonald wrote: Does the history of baptism justify the question of those sent from the Pharisees (John 1:24)? It seems to imply
                                        Message 19 of 25 , May 17 7:00 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald@...> wrote:
                                          Does the history of baptism justify the question of those
                                          sent from the Pharisees (John 1:24)?

                                          It seems to imply that for John to be baptizing requires
                                          that he be one of the three: Messiah, Elijah or the prophet.

                                          Thanks

                                          Bob

                                          Hello Bob,

                                          I would encourage you to read an unpublished paper I wrote which argues for the thesis that the Baptist in John's Gospel is a personification of "the Law and the Prophets". The Baptist is placed into the role of "the Law and the Prophets", and as such, testifies in favor of seeing Jesus as the Messiah, and against "the Jews of Jerusalem who would elevate the role of the Law and the Prophets to a higher stature than where it was originally intended to stand. John the author is rewriting Pauline theology using allegory as his genre, in my opinion. You may read the paper at the link below, or by going to Joe Gagne's website on Johannine Literature.
                                          http://www.fourthgospel.com/unpub.htm#e






                                          Matthew Estrada

                                          113 Laurel Court

                                          Peachtree City, Ga 30269


                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Do you Yahoo!?
                                          SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Martin Edwards
                                          ... talking ... of the ... Jerusalem ... during the ... Benjamin, ... Judas at ... circumcised and ... After Simeon led the community out of Jerusalem, there
                                          Message 20 of 25 , May 18 10:29 AM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
                                            <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > >
                                            > > Hold on a sec. My historical nose is getting tweaked. If you are
                                            talking
                                            > > about the 1st Jewish War, there was no "Roman Church" and members
                                            of the
                                            > > Desposynoi continued to be "Bishops" (wrong word, really) of the
                                            Jerusalem
                                            > > Assembly for decades. Shymeon led the group out of Jerusalem
                                            during the
                                            > > Roman destruction. He was followed by Judas, Zaccheus, Tobias,
                                            Benjamin,
                                            > > Yohanon, Mattaya, Philip, Seneca, Judas, Levi, Ephraim, Joseph and
                                            Judas at
                                            > > which time the Bar Kochba revolt began 148ish CE.
                                            >
                                            > And all of whom, according to Eusebius, were "Hebrews" and were
                                            circumcised and
                                            > none of whom were installed by "Rome".
                                            >
                                            > So Martin, if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
                                            >

                                            After Simeon led the community out of Jerusalem, there was a
                                            "Catholic" bishop in Jerusalem. As noted above, I just haven't got
                                            time to look it up on a weekday. Perhaps "Roman" is premature, as
                                            Rome had only just begun its bid for power. The Desposyni tried to
                                            get their rights restored on several occasions, with little effect.

                                            Mart.
                                          • Martin Edwards
                                            ... that Jesus ... died to those ... executioners is not ... Not necessarily. I was just reluctant to broaden the debate to unmanageable dimensions. It has
                                            Message 21 of 25 , May 18 10:45 AM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
                                              <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Martin Edwards wrote:
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              > > You have me nearly right but not quite. I do not think that Paul
                                              > > thought that there was any betrayal, but a later writer read one into
                                              > > what he wrote. As for the invective, I shall not engage.
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > But you do concede
                                              >
                                              > 1. that both he and those to whom he is writing in 1 Cor. are aware
                                              that Jesus
                                              > was "handed over/delivered up" by someone on the night before he
                                              died to those
                                              > who subsequently put him to death, and
                                              >
                                              > 2. that this tradition of Jesus being "handed over" to his
                                              executioners is not
                                              > something that Paul invented
                                              >
                                              > yes?

                                              Not necessarily. I was just reluctant to broaden the debate to
                                              unmanageable dimensions. It has been argued (and I can give you the
                                              reference) that the story grew up (not necessarily invented by Paul)
                                              as a legend of origin for the Mass, which was actually absorbed from
                                              the mystery religions.
                                              >
                                              > And given
                                              >
                                              > 1. that PARADIDWMI did not mean "arrest", and
                                              >
                                              > 2. that when used, as in 1 Cor, of a person who, as a result of
                                              his handing
                                              > over, meets his death, the verb means "betrayal",
                                              >
                                              > why do you insist that the interpretation (interpolation?) that this
                                              "handing
                                              > over" was a betrayal is something that is only later read into
                                              Paul's text?
                                              >
                                              > Was the work of this unknown, but "Pauline dependent" person who
                                              originated the
                                              > betrayal theme known to Matthew? To Mark?
                                              >
                                              > Jeffrey
                                              >
                                              > >
                                              Again this is going to go way OT and Felix is sure to stop us fairly
                                              soon, but Enoch Powell argues that Matthew is a composite document
                                              and, incidentally makes the point that there was not much for Judas to
                                              do, without taking this line of thought any further. My unknown
                                              author's work could have got into it without the author being well
                                              known. As you say, much of this is speculation; but the concensus is
                                              speculation piled on speculation for centuries. Christians only think
                                              that it is historical fact because they have been taught it from
                                              childhood.

                                              Mart.
                                            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                              ... So is Catholic -- at least in the sense of Roman Catholic . So while you are looking up the name of the post war bishop of Jerusalem this weekend,
                                              Message 22 of 25 , May 18 10:56 AM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Martin Edwards wrote:

                                                > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
                                                > <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
                                                > >
                                                > > >
                                                > > > Hold on a sec. My historical nose is getting tweaked. If you are
                                                > talking
                                                > > > about the 1st Jewish War, there was no "Roman Church" and members
                                                > of the
                                                > > > Desposynoi continued to be "Bishops" (wrong word, really) of the
                                                > Jerusalem
                                                > > > Assembly for decades. Shymeon led the group out of Jerusalem
                                                > during the
                                                > > > Roman destruction. He was followed by Judas, Zaccheus, Tobias,
                                                > Benjamin,
                                                > > > Yohanon, Mattaya, Philip, Seneca, Judas, Levi, Ephraim, Joseph and
                                                > Judas at
                                                > > > which time the Bar Kochba revolt began 148ish CE.
                                                > >
                                                > > And all of whom, according to Eusebius, were "Hebrews" and were
                                                > circumcised and
                                                > > none of whom were installed by "Rome".
                                                > >
                                                > > So Martin, if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
                                                > >
                                                >
                                                > After Simeon led the community out of Jerusalem, there was a
                                                > "Catholic" bishop in Jerusalem. As noted above, I just haven't got
                                                > time to look it up on a weekday. Perhaps "Roman" is premature, as
                                                > Rome had only just begun its bid for power.

                                                So is "Catholic" -- at least in the sense of "Roman Catholic". So while you are
                                                looking up the name of the post war "bishop" of Jerusalem this weekend, perhaps
                                                you'll also look up and provide us with the evidence that grounds your claim
                                                that this "bishop" was "Catholic". In the meantime, since it doesn't involve
                                                looking up anything, perhaps you'd provide us with what your definition of
                                                "catholic" is?

                                                > The Desposyni tried to
                                                > get their rights restored on several occasions, with little effect.

                                                May we have the evidence for this please? As well as the evidence that any of
                                                post war "bishops" who, according to Eusebius, held sway over the Jerusalem
                                                church up to the Bar Kochba revolt were puppets of Rome?

                                                Jeffrey
                                                --

                                                Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                                1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                                Chicago, IL 60626

                                                jgibson000@...
                                              • Bob Schacht
                                                ... It does not help your case to continue using anachronistic words to describe First Century history. I can t really take your speculations seriously as long
                                                Message 23 of 25 , May 18 11:00 AM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  At 05:29 PM 5/18/2004 +0000, Martin Edwards wrote:

                                                  >After Simeon led the community out of Jerusalem, there was a "Catholic"
                                                  >bishop in Jerusalem.

                                                  It does not help your case to continue using anachronistic words to
                                                  describe First Century history. I can't really take your speculations
                                                  seriously as long as you continue to do that.
                                                  Bob

                                                  >As noted above, I just haven't got
                                                  >time to look it up on a weekday. Perhaps "Roman" is premature, as
                                                  >Rome had only just begun its bid for power. The Desposyni tried to
                                                  >get their rights restored on several occasions, with little effect.
                                                  >
                                                  >Mart.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                  >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                  >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                                  >MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
                                                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >

                                                  Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
                                                  Northern Arizona University
                                                  Flagstaff, AZ

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Bill Bullin
                                                  ... for the thesis that the Baptist in John s Gospel is a personification of the Law and the Prophets . John the author is rewriting Pauline theology using
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , May 19 2:56 AM
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    > Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald@...> wrote:
                                                    > Does the history of baptism justify the question of those
                                                    > sent from the Pharisees (John 1:24)?
                                                    >
                                                    > It seems to imply that for John to be baptizing requires
                                                    > that he be one of the three: Messiah, Elijah or the prophet.
                                                    >
                                                    Matthew replied:
                                                    > I would encourage you to read an unpublished paper I wrote which argues
                                                    for the thesis that the Baptist in John's Gospel is a personification of
                                                    "the Law and the Prophets". John the author is rewriting Pauline theology
                                                    using allegory as his genre, in my opinion. You may read the paper at the
                                                    link below, or by going to Joe Gagne's website on Johannine Literature.
                                                    > http://www.fourthgospel.com/unpub.htm#e
                                                    >

                                                    Dear Bob and Matthew

                                                    Without wishing to commit the offence of cross-threading unduly, may I
                                                    briefly take this opportunity to say, first to Matthew that I have now
                                                    started to read his thesis. I will do my determined best to read it in its
                                                    own terms despite my prejudice that 'John' was not a follower of Paul but
                                                    an equally profound thinker with a priestly symbolic and Jewish mystical
                                                    background; a Jerusalemite and witness to some aspects of Jesus ministry,
                                                    including a connection with the Baptist movement, a cousin of Barnabas. I
                                                    suspect that he may have been a member of the Sopherim mentioned by the
                                                    later rabbis, not merely a counter of Hebrew words and letters but a
                                                    christological composer, and that there may be a connection between the
                                                    Sopherim and the Hebrew root seph as in 'Joseph' and 'Aseph'; a root being
                                                    radically re-interpreted recently, following MacLaurin's article, in terms
                                                    of the Akkadian and Sumerian concepts of healing and exorcism. Somehow I
                                                    think this approach might help sort out the conundrum that 4G seems both
                                                    late and early, historical reliable yet theologically symbolic, symbolic yet
                                                    reaching further into the mystical world of Enochian ascents and decents;
                                                    combining narrative and numerically repetitive discourses that seem (quite
                                                    paradoxically), geared for the more advanced believer rather than for less
                                                    advanced catechumens. As I say, I respect the position you take in relation
                                                    to Pauline dependence as so many scholars do, and however much we disagree
                                                    on such fundamental issues, I am sure I will learn a great deal from your
                                                    approach, esp. in relation to Moses and Joseph.

                                                    Second, may I make a very brief response to Bob? My poor mind has been
                                                    buzzing away on 'the Holy Seed' which appears to be connected with a myth
                                                    concerning Cain, Abel, and Seth; Noah's flood, re-birth and Baptism. My
                                                    response to you then is this: it is important to note that a question posed
                                                    by those from one of the sects of Judaism may not necessarily reflect the
                                                    the views held by a Christian writer with origins in another sect, say an
                                                    Enochian Essene Priest, though I suspect that a continuum of beliefs existed
                                                    accross the sects accounting for why the Jesus phenomenon drew different
                                                    responses to those from differing Second Temple sects. If, for a moment we
                                                    imagine a sociological grouping that had access to the kind of theology
                                                    found in Wisdom 10: 1-4 and Malachi 1:6-7, 3:1-4, 16-18, might they not
                                                    produce a movement somewhat akin to the movement of John the Baptist, a
                                                    movement with not insubstantial attestation outwith the New Testament and
                                                    with attestation from varying documents within it? Indeed, might we not see
                                                    a connection to the Johannine trinity of the spirit, the water and the
                                                    blood. Without wishing to drift off to readily into the complex historical,
                                                    Jewish Greek and doctrinal world of
                                                    'the soul' and its mortality and immortality, I have always considered that
                                                    New Testament theology, particularly Johannine theology offers a little more
                                                    than either Christus Victor or an atoning sacrifice offered to right the
                                                    balances of the eternal scales of justice held in one anthropomorphic hand
                                                    of the Father; it seems that we are confronted with the death of the cosmic
                                                    creator who was in the beginning with God, somehow the death of one creation
                                                    as a means, a raft, a piece of wood, a doorway into a New Creation. In terms
                                                    of practical or applied theology, this cosmic salvic dimension related to
                                                    the sacred nature of the environment, a divine poem we trash at our peril,
                                                    whether we are either capitalists or communists or merely idealist
                                                    international mutualists if we fail to recognise a continuity, in some form,
                                                    between the old and the new. This, anyhow is my 'odd take' on baptism and I
                                                    delight to be corrected by better (wiser) hearts, and souls and minds and
                                                    pragmatic designs than mine, within the wise restrictions of the list's
                                                    protocol.

                                                    Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
                                                  • mr_atoz@yahoo.com
                                                    I don t believe it was baptisms themselves that prompted such a question from his peers but rather their sheer volume. The historian Josephus recounts that
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , May 24 12:13 PM
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      I don't believe it was "baptisms" themselves that prompted such a
                                                      question from his peers but rather their sheer volume. The historian
                                                      Josephus recounts that Herod Antipas was concerned that John's
                                                      following was such that he feared a scenario in which these people
                                                      would be completely obedient to John. Likewise these numbers--esp. in
                                                      those times--almost certainly would have led to questions about
                                                      John's potential political ambitions as a prophet--or messiah.
                                                      --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, Bob MacDonald
                                                      <bobmacdonald@s...> wrote:
                                                      > Does the history of baptism justify the question of those
                                                      > sent from the Pharisees (John 1:24)?
                                                      >
                                                      > It seems to imply that for John to be baptizing requires
                                                      > that he be one of the three: Messiah, Elijah or the prophet.
                                                      >
                                                      > Thanks
                                                      >
                                                      > Bob
                                                      >
                                                      > Bob MacDonald
                                                      > http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
                                                      > http://peleyah.ca
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.