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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , May 17, 2004
      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 2 of 25 , May 17, 2004
        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 3 of 25 , May 17, 2004
          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 4 of 25 , May 18, 2004
            --- 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 5 of 25 , May 18, 2004
              --- 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 6 of 25 , May 18, 2004
                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 7 of 25 , May 18, 2004
                  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 8 of 25 , May 19, 2004
                    > 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 9 of 25 , May 24, 2004
                      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.