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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Synoptic 'Sitz im Leben'

Expand Messages
  • Richard Anderson
    Ron Price: I going to address Luke only. My problem with late dating and relative dating to Matt and Mark is this. Luke has no theology of the cross. As you
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 28, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron Price:

      I going to address Luke only. My problem with late dating and relative
      dating to Matt and Mark is this. Luke has no theology of the cross. As you
      know, Creed and those who agree with him note that Luke has no equivalent of
      the ransom saying (Mk. 10:45; Mt. 20:28), nor of Matthew's connection of
      Jesus's covenant blood with the remission of sins (Mt. 26:28). Luke does not
      connect forgiveness of sins with the death of Jesus. Why Luke has, per
      Marshall, de-emphasized this theme. I also conclude that Bart Ehrman in the
      Orthodox Corruption of Scripture has explained what happened with respect to
      the text why the shorter reading should be the preferred reading.
      Consequently the sitz im leben needs to address these issues and why Luke
      uses insider phrases such as "second first sabbath" in Luke 6:1 and in Acts
      13:42 the phrase "the between sabbath."

      Richard H. Anderson

      (5) ca. 90 CE : Luke's reference to his predecessors
      'Luke' was the most scholarly of the synoptic writers. Naturally he
      knew about the earlier gospel writers (he tells us so when he writes of
      the "many" in Luke 1:1), and naturally he had studied their writings,
      i.e. Mark and Matthew. But he had his own individual outlook. He
      envisaged a more complete gospel than Mark and a more consistently
      pro-Gentile gospel than Matthew. His primary source was Mark. His second
      source was the sayings of Jesus. Matthew was used merely to fill a few
      gaps in the story, such as extra information about John the Baptist.

      Can anyone propose a more realistic synoptic 'Sitz im Leben' ?

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    • Richard Anderson
      Ron Price As a further response we know from the bible and Josephus that the romans so thoroughly destroyed the temple that there remained not one stone on
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 29, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron Price
        As a further response we know from the bible and Josephus that the romans so
        thoroughly destroyed the temple that there remained not one stone on another
        and that the romans stationed an army at the site of the roman Antonio's
        fortress to insure that the temple site would not be used for any cultic
        ceremonies. Consequently animal sacrifices at the temple effectively ceased.
        The writings of Josephus include both his eyewitness account and that of
        Eleazar, captain of the temple under one of the last high priest and the
        commander at Masada. Both report that the temple was leveled and no walls
        remained standing. It is likely that the wailing wall is part of Antonio's
        fortress that was close to the temple and not part of the temple.

        None of the gospel prophetcies mention the destruction of the temple by fire
        which is exactly what happened.

        I mention this because the destruction of the temple can not be the earliest
        date of publication. It is quite possible that one or more of the gospels
        predate the destruction of the temple. It is also possible that after the
        destruction of the temple a second edition appeared. Matthew, according to
        Schliermachler, shows signs of being both the earliest and latest gospel.

        The other reason I mention the utter complete destruction is that a late
        publication of Luke with a theology of a cross included makes its author
        horribly inconsistent and perhaps it is true that the author of Luke did not
        understand that the death of Jesus on the cross effectively terminated the
        need for any more sacrifices as stated in the Epistle to the Hebrews but I
        do not think so. Rather I propose Luke and Acts were written while the
        temple was standing.
        Richard H. Anderson
      • Richard Anderson
        I agree, two different Eleazars. But that was not change what I said. Richard H. Anderson ... that of Eleazar, captain of the temple under one of the last high
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 29, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          I agree, two different Eleazars. But that was not change what I said.

          Richard H. Anderson

          Richard H. Anderson said, in part:

          >>The writings of Josephus include both his eyewitness account and
          that of Eleazar, captain of the temple under one of the last high
          priest and the commander at Masada. <<

          But the Eleazar (ben Hananiah, Captain of the Temple) who started the
          revolt was *not* the same as the Eleazar (ben Jair, who took command
          of the Sicarii movement after the private militia leader Menachem ben
          Judah was killed during his attempt to assume control of the
          government after orchestrating the "victory" over the Roman garrison)
          who commanded Masada.

          Regards,

          Dave Hindley
          Cleveland, Ohio, USA
        • Richard Anderson
          I agree, two different Eleazars. But that does not change what I said. Note what Eleazar, the final Jewish commander at Masada, related three years after the
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 29, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree, two different Eleazars. But that does not change what I said.

            Note what Eleazar, the final Jewish commander at Masada, related three years
            after the war was finished at Jerusalem. He gives an eyewitness account of
            how the Romans preserved Fort Antonia (the Haram) among the ruins. What
            Eleazar said to the 960 Jewish people (who were to commit suicide rather
            than fall into the hands of General Silva who was on the verge of capturing
            the Fortress of Masada) is very important in regard to our present inquiry.
            This final Jewish commander lamented over the sad state of affairs that
            everyone could witness at this twilight period of the conflict after the
            main war with the Romans was over.

            Jerusalem was to Eleazar a disastrous spectacle of utter ruin. There was
            only one thing that remained of the former Jerusalem that Eleazar could
            single out as still standing. This was the Camp of the Romans that Titus
            permitted to remain as a monument of humiliation over the Mother City of the
            Jews. Eleazar acknowledged that this military encampment had been in
            Jerusalem before the war, and that Titus let it continue after the war. The
            retention of this single Camp of the Romans, according to Eleazar, was a
            symbol of the victory that Rome had achieved over the Jewish people. His
            words are recorded in War VII.8,7. Several words and phrases need
            emphasizing, and I hope I have done so:

            "And where is now that great city [Jerusalem], the metropolis of the Jewish
            nation, which was fortified by so many walls round about, which had so many
            fortresses and large towers to defend it, which could hardly contain the
            instruments prepared for the war, and which had so many ten thousands of men
            to fight for it? Where is this city that was believed to have God himself
            inhabiting therein? it is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath
            nothing left but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those
            [the Romans] that hath destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins; some
            unfortunate old men also lie ashes upon the of the Temple [the Temple was
            then in total ruins — all of it had been burnt to ashes], and a few women
            are there preserved alive by the enemy, for our bitter shame and reproach."


            Richard H. Anderson

            Richard H. Anderson said, in part:

            >>The writings of Josephus include both his eyewitness account and
            that of Eleazar, captain of the temple under one of the last high
            priest and the commander at Masada. <<

            But the Eleazar (ben Hananiah, Captain of the Temple) who started the
            revolt was *not* the same as the Eleazar (ben Jair, who took command
            of the Sicarii movement after the private militia leader Menachem ben
            Judah was killed during his attempt to assume control of the
            government after orchestrating the "victory" over the Roman garrison)
            who commanded Masada.

            Regards,

            Dave Hindley
            Cleveland, Ohio, USA
          • Richard Anderson
            Ron Price, greetings: ... by ... Ron Price replied: On your Web site you criticize people who quote from older authorities, yet you make great use of Harnack
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 30, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Ron Price, greetings:


              Ron Price wrote:

              >> the scenario in which Jerusalem is surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20)
              >>has an obvious Sitz im Leben in the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE described
              by
              >>Josephus in _Wars of the Jews_, V.9.2 & V.11.4-12. 'Luke' must have been
              >>aware of this historical event and worked it into his 'prediction' of the
              >>destruction of Jerusalem.

              David Conklin replied:

              >This scenario too has its fair share of flaws as noted by Harnack and
              >others. See the relevant comments made in my study on Gospel dates at <a
              >href="http://biblestudy.iwarp.com">my web site</a>.

              Ron Price replied:
              On your Web site you criticize people who quote from older
              authorities, yet you make great use of Harnack who wrote about 90 years
              ago. NT study has moved on since then. For instance Harnack's simplistic
              view of the end of Acts had already been demolished by Moffatt in 1918
              (_Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament_, 3rd. Edn., T&T
              Clark, Edinburgh, pp.312-313).
              Many modern critics would add that 'Luke' didn't mention the death of
              Paul because he probably died at the instigation of Nero, and to have
              explained this would have involved criticism of the Roman authorities.

              This criticism view was demolished by
              C.K. Barrett in 1961 when made a profound observation. He said referring to
              Luke-Acts: 'No Roman official would ever have filtered out so much of what
              to him would be theological and ecclesiastical rubbish in order to reach so
              tiny a grain of relevant apology.'[C.K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in
              Recent Study, (London 1961), p.63]

              Richard H. Anderson


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Ron Price
              Reading H.H.Rowley s _The Relevance of the Bible_ in 1962 I was much impressed by the way he presented the OT prophets in their historical background. It was
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 4, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Reading H.H.Rowley's _The Relevance of the Bible_ in 1962 I was much
                impressed by the way he presented the OT prophets in their historical
                background. It was the last in a series of discoveries which finally
                convinced me that the 'Conservative Evangelical' position was untenable.
                A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, but it remains
                true that the Bible will only be properly understood when its books are
                viewed in their historical setting or 'Sitz im Leben'.
                I want to present five items which require explanation. The first is a
                context demanding a written document, and the remainder are written
                statements demanding a context. The Three Source Theory is the simplest
                synoptic theory which provides in all cases a proper match between the
                statement/document and a credible historical context.

                (1) ca.30-60 CE : James' testimony to Jesus
                James the brother of Jesus was the undisputed leader of the earliest
                followers of Jesus, the Christian Jews. On this issue Acts and Galatians
                are unanimous. Such an authoritative person, keen to propagate his
                beliefs about the role of Jesus, and having several decades in which to
                do so, must surely have recorded something about his Lord. For we know
                from Acts 15:19-20 that he was not averse to putting pen to papyrus, or
                at least authorizing one of his fellow disciples to do so. His rival
                Paul produced many documents (according to my analysis no less than13
                letters extant in part or in whole).
                An early source recording the sayings of Jesus, written or authorized
                by James, would fit this scenario perfectly. It could also explain
                Paul's attacks on "lofty words or wisdom" (1 Cor 2:1) and also (c.f.
                Matt 7:24-27) his attacks on the "wise", his taking the side of the
                foolish, and his plea to build on the right foundation in 1 Cor 1-3.

                (2) ca. 130CE : Papias' testimony to a collection of Jesus' sayings
                Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, wrote: "Matthew recorded the oracles in
                the Hebrew tongue, and each interpreted them to the best of his
                ability." (H.Bettenson, _Documents of the Christian Church_). We can
                excuse Papias for being wrong about "Matthew" after this length of time.
                The term "Hebrew" (as A.Millard has pointed out) was used by Greek
                speaking people to mean Hebrew or Aramaic. So we can reasonably suppose
                that Papias knew of an Aramaic document produced by the Jesus movement.
                It is but a small step to identifying this with a set of sayings of
                Jesus produced under the auspices of James.

                (3) ca. 70 CE : Mark's gospel
                'Mark' had a great admiration for Paul and his Christology. But he
                disagreed on one point. He felt that Paul's exclusive emphasis on the
                death and resurrection of Jesus was unbalanced. The life and teaching of
                Jesus needed to be recorded, especially now that Jerusalem had fallen.
                The church in Rome was already well established, as we can see from
                Paul's letter to "all God's beloved in Rome" (Romans 1:7, RSV). It had
                survived Nero's persecution. After the Roman triumph in 70 CE the spoils
                of Jerusalem had been paraded through the streets of Rome. The Roman
                Christians needed to dissociate themselves from the despised anti-Roman
                Jewish Zealots. The Pauline gospel must be embedded in the story of
                Jesus and presented to a Gentile world. 'Mark' knew just what was needed
                and invented a new genre, the "gospel" in order to fulfil that need.

                (4) ca. 80 CE : Matthew's reference to the destruction of the temple
                'Matthew' was not content with the subtle restraint of Mark's gospel.
                His significant contributions were to combine Mark with the sayings
                source (TA LOGIA as Papias called it), to add birth and resurrection
                stories, and in all to present the Jesus as the supreme fulfilment of
                Old Testament prophecies.
                For the climax of his diatribe against the scribes and Pharisees in
                ch.23 he composed a Lament over Jerusalem, which included (v.38) a clear
                reference to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple ten years or so
                earlier. The reference would have made little sense in a sayings
                document written ca. 50-60 CE.

                (5) ca. 90 CE : Luke's reference to his predecessors
                'Luke' was the most scholarly of the synoptic writers. Naturally he
                knew about the earlier gospel writers (he tells us so when he writes of
                the "many" in Luke 1:1), and naturally he had studied their writings,
                i.e. Mark and Matthew. But he had his own individual outlook. He
                envisaged a more complete gospel than Mark and a more consistently
                pro-Gentile gospel than Matthew. His primary source was Mark. His second
                source was the sayings of Jesus. Matthew was used merely to fill a few
                gaps in the story, such as extra information about John the Baptist.

                Can anyone propose a more realistic synoptic 'Sitz im Leben' ?

                Ron Price

                Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                e-mail: ron.price@...

                Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
              • David C. Hindley
                ... that of Eleazar, captain of the temple under one of the last high priest and the commander at Masada.
                Message 7 of 10 , Oct 6, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Richard H. Anderson said, in part:

                  >>The writings of Josephus include both his eyewitness account and
                  that of Eleazar, captain of the temple under one of the last high
                  priest and the commander at Masada. <<

                  But the Eleazar (ben Hananiah, Captain of the Temple) who started the
                  revolt was *not* the same as the Eleazar (ben Jair, who took command
                  of the Sicarii movement after the private militia leader Menachem ben
                  Judah was killed during his attempt to assume control of the
                  government after orchestrating the "victory" over the Roman garrison)
                  who commanded Masada.

                  Regards,

                  Dave Hindley
                  Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                • David C. Hindley
                  ... three years after the war was finished at Jerusalem. He gives an eyewitness account of how the Romans preserved Fort Antonia (the Haram) among the ruins.
                  Message 8 of 10 , Oct 6, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Richard Anderson said:

                    >>Note what Eleazar, the final Jewish commander at Masada, related
                    three years after the war was finished at Jerusalem. He gives an
                    eyewitness account of how the Romans preserved Fort Antonia (the
                    Haram) among the ruins.<<

                    Perhaps this is Eleazar ben Jair's final speech, as Josephus tells it,
                    but do you really believe it preserves any of what he might have
                    actually said? It is almost certainly Josephus' own characterization
                    of what he would *like* Eleazar to have said. Especially when it is
                    said in a manner that seems intended to explain to Greek readers, in
                    philosophical and symbolic terms they might understand, what could
                    have motivated some Jews to revolt so passionately.

                    Regards,

                    Dave Hindley
                    Cleveland, Ohio, USA



                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Ron Price
                    ... David, On your Web site you criticize people who quote from older authorities, yet you make great use of Harnack who wrote about 90 years ago. NT study has
                    Message 9 of 10 , Oct 7, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I wrote:

                      >> the scenario in which Jerusalem is surrounded by armies (Luke 21:20)
                      >>has an obvious Sitz im Leben in the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE described by
                      >>Josephus in _Wars of the Jews_, V.9.2 & V.11.4-12. 'Luke' must have been
                      >>aware of this historical event and worked it into his 'prediction' of the
                      >>destruction of Jerusalem.

                      David Conklin replied:

                      >This scenario too has its fair share of flaws as noted by Harnack and
                      >others. See the relevant comments made in my study on Gospel dates at <a
                      >href="http://biblestudy.iwarp.com">my web site</a>.

                      David,
                      On your Web site you criticize people who quote from older
                      authorities, yet you make great use of Harnack who wrote about 90 years
                      ago. NT study has moved on since then. For instance Harnack's simplistic
                      view of the end of Acts had already been demolished by Moffatt in 1918
                      (_Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament_, 3rd. Edn., T&T
                      Clark, Edinburgh, pp.312-313).
                      Many modern critics would add that 'Luke' didn't mention the death of
                      Paul because he probably died at the instigation of Nero, and to have
                      explained this would have involved criticism of the Roman authorities.

                      [Please excuse this diversion into Acts in the Synoptic List, but it
                      does have an important bearing on the date of Luke.]

                      Ron Price

                      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                      e-mail: ron.price@...

                      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Ron Price
                      ... Richard, This quote leaves me baffled. You ll have to spell it out. No doubt I d have understood it in its original context, but I don t have Barrett s
                      Message 10 of 10 , Oct 7, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I wrote:

                        > Many modern critics would add that 'Luke' didn't mention the death of
                        >Paul because he probably died at the instigation of Nero, and to have
                        >explained this would have involved criticism of the Roman authorities.

                        Richard Anderson replied:

                        >This criticism view was demolished by
                        >C.K. Barrett in 1961 when made a profound observation. He said referring to
                        >Luke-Acts: 'No Roman official would ever have filtered out so much of what
                        >to him would be theological and ecclesiastical rubbish in order to reach so
                        >tiny a grain of relevant apology.'[C.K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in
                        >Recent Study, (London 1961), p.63]

                        Richard,
                        This quote leaves me baffled. You'll have to spell it out. No doubt
                        I'd have understood it in its original context, but I don't have
                        Barrett's book on my shelves.

                        Ron Price

                        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                        e-mail: ron.price@...

                        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm


                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.