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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , May 13, 2004
    • 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 2 of 25 , May 14, 2004
      • 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 3 of 25 , May 15, 2004
        • 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 4 of 25 , May 15, 2004
          • 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 5 of 25 , May 15, 2004
            • 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 6 of 25 , May 15, 2004
              • 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 7 of 25 , May 16, 2004
                • 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 8 of 25 , May 16, 2004
                  • 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 9 of 25 , May 16, 2004
                    • 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 10 of 25 , May 16, 2004
                      • 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 11 of 25 , May 16, 2004
                        • 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 12 of 25 , May 17, 2004
                          • 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 13 of 25 , May 17, 2004
                            • 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 14 of 25 , May 17, 2004
                              • 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 15 of 25 , May 17, 2004
                                • 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 16 of 25 , May 17, 2004
                                  • 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 17 of 25 , May 17, 2004
                                    • 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 18 of 25 , May 18, 2004
                                      • 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 19 of 25 , May 18, 2004
                                        • 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 20 of 25 , May 18, 2004
                                          • 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 21 of 25 , May 18, 2004
                                            • 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 22 of 25 , May 19, 2004
                                              • 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 23 of 25 , May 24, 2004
                                                • 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.