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

Baptism of John

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.