Resurrection Appearance to James the Just

by Leolaia 77 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  gumby

  I noticed you 3 are the only ones commenting on this thread.....any ideas why?

  Gumby
• 

  Narkissos

  Gumby: If I'm not mistaken, there were 6 posters on this thread (including yourself, asking approximately the same question twice): could you please tell me what is YOUR problem with it?
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....Okay, I see what you mean. It's an interesting observation (and one that would hold as true only if 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 is treated as an interpolation), but it is not one that necessarily implies a separate didactic tradition for the "Lord's teaching": 1) Positing a separate tradition for the "Lord's teaching" would make sense if the didactic commands are missing from the sayings tradition but instead they do correspond in thought to specific sayings in the tradition; 2) As far as we know, the pattern is simply because Paul is more likely to stress the Lord's authority of the teaching if he is only paraphrasing the thought or gist of the didactic sayings; in other words, it is simply a rhetorical device that Paul uses to link his paraphrases to the didactic tradition; 3) the tendency for James to reflect the wording of the sayings tradition without attributing counsel to the "Lord's teaching" is simply due to the fact that the author does not share Paul's rhetorical style; 4) Nonverbal or paraphrastic parallels are not always attributed to the "Lord's teaching" as the parallel on taxes in Romans 13:6-7 shows; 5) one reference to the "Lord's teaching" is apocalyptic in character and has little in common with the didactic commandments on divorce, paid apostleship, taxpaying, etc. (1 Thessalonians 4:15); 6) the dominical command on support for apostles (1 Corinthians 9:14), which paraphrases the thought in Luke 10:7-8, is closely related in thought to the statement in 1 Corinthians 10:27 which is a direct verbal parallel to the sayings tradition (cf. Gospel of Thomas 14:2); 7) David Dungan has pointed out that didactic parallels are concentrated in certain sections of the Pauline corpus (cf. Romans 12-14 and 1 Corinthians 7-14), are largely dependent on material also concentrated in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain or the church-order materials in Mark, and the commands on divorce and support for apostles in particular incorporate secondary interpretations also later incorporated in the Synoptic gospels. Similarly, the Didache and the Epistle of James draw considerably more on edited material such as the Sermon on the Mount/Plain than material elsewhere in the tradition. The implication, then, is that Paul also attests the development of certain units of catechistic material circulating under the authority of Jesus, which includes both the dominical commands and material such as Romans 13. Dungan's book is The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). Not that it's the last word on the matter (by no means), but that is what I was going by.

  The "kingdom of God" as the central theme of Jesus' teaching is a huge subject and I can't go into it in the detail that Sheehan and others do, but I can note that it is presented in Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17, and Luke 9:2, 11; 19:11 as such, it forms the second petition of the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2, Matthew 6:10, Didache 8:2, the revolutionary theme that God's rule has already arrived is a common thread through the Q and Thomas traditions, not just the parables (cf. Matthew 6:10; Mark 10:15; Luke 10:9, 11:20, 17:20-21; Gospel of Thomas 3, 51, 113). The charge of Jesus being "King of the Jews" would also follow from his proclamation of the "Kingdom of God" as having arrived, and the early kerygma about Jesus having risen from the dead also corresponds to theme of being saved from death by the Kingdom (cf. Mark 9:1, 10:15-25; Luke 22:42-43; John 3:3-16, and perhaps also 11:25). Most importantly, the concept and term also appears in Paul (Galatians 5:21; Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 4:20, 6:9-10, 15:24, 50; Colossians 4:11) and John (John 3:3-16), so not only did it emerge before the earliest Christian writings but it also is the common denominator between Paul, the Synoptics, the Didache, John, and Thomas. And with respect to the parables, clear evidence against redacting "the Kingdom of God" into the parables at the stage of Mark or Q is the presence of the formula in paralleled sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, which by their wording often reveal themselves to be independent oral formulations of the same sayings. So I see no reason not to posit the inclusion of "the Kingdom of God" in the oral stage.

  Leolaia
• 

  gumby

  I never said it was a problem old bud. I just wondered WHY nobody comments on these types of threads. I used to start them myself.........and only a few would comment. I've always wondered why. my gut feeling is.....they are DEEPER than people wish to go. I think most already have opinions about spirituality and so they don't feel they need to delve any deeper.

  When I first started questioning the bible and christianity.....I also enjoyed these types of threads. I wanted/needed proof of the negatives about the bible. Once I drew a fairly solid opinion.......then these subjects seemed to fade in the backround for me.

  I'm glad you and Pete and Leolaia have the info. for those who at this stage in their life, need it.

  Sorry if I offended. (maybe i'm just jealous cuz i'm illiterate)

  Gumby
• 

  peacefulpete

  I really wasn't demanding any response, sorry if it came across that way. The idea of Mark 13 referring to the 135 events is new to me so I can't offer much of a response. Detering is endorsing it, I will learn more. Your comments are appreciated. I know only that the emphasis upon Xtian persecution by Jews better fits the later date.
  
  Your comments about bar Kochba were interesting. It does seem odd tho that Eusebius would be unaware of the common symbolism of the star. I don't see it as any big point but surely B.K. may have applied the expression it to himself in a Hellenized way, IOW literally having decended from heaven. Then again, maybe what you have surmised is the whole of it.
  
  You guys should both spend alittle time at the Jesus Mysteries Yahoo discussion. Your comments would help keep things focused.
  
  Gumby..I'm here because I have friends who can teach me here and because I tire of debating the flood and evolution.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Leolaia..Price sees in Mark 9 evidence of late composition. There the attempt is made to explain the century or so that has transpired. The Markan teaching that the Kingdom was to happen in the immediate future needed to be reinterpreted as a vision. Perhaps verse 1 led to 11 in some early form? Perhaps verse 1 as well was part of this explanation of other passages hat refer to an immediate kingdom. Perhaps the kingdom theme had spritual meaning initially then reinterpreted by Jewish Xtians as literal, only to be disapointed and requiring a new vision to explain away the references to it being immediate. We see something similar in 'Pauline' texts why not Mark.
  
  I realize this was not your topic, but it does question whether Mark 1 reflects a Q tradition.
• 

  peacefulpete

  That was Mark 9:1 not Mark 1
• 

  Leolaia

  Peacefulpete.....As you know from my post on Secret Mark, I believe that the text of Mark was tampered with considerably in the first half of the second century, if not later considering the Carpocratian version of Mark, so I view it as entirely understandable if the text was updated to refer to the more recent events of A.D. 135 via interpolations or redactions. The view I was taking issue with was that the entire "Little Apocalypse" was written after 135 (as it was used by the First and Third gospels), as well as the gospel as a whole -- and Matthew and Luke which followed. I looked for Detering's article but couldn't find it online, so I can't give you my opinion of his argument and reasons for considering a late date (which might address my objections).

  Eusebius was probably relying on second-hand (or third-hand) information, and he certainly knew the name had something to do with a "star", but describing the name as a claim by bar-Kochba that he was a star fallen from heaven has such blatant polemical intent (especially in view of "fallen stars" being regarded in 1 Enoch as fallen angels, the belief from Tertullian and Origen onward that Satan was the "Lucifer" or fallen morning star of Isaiah 14:12, and the apocalyptic expectation that Satan would reveal himself in false Messiahs) that it is hard to accept it uncritically, especially in view of the archaeological evidence suggesting that the military leader primarily went by his birth name of Shimon bar-Kosba (later bastardized into bar-Koziba) and not bar-Kochba. Perhaps Jews inclined to expect a heaven-sent Messiah picked up on the name bar-Kochba and referred to him as such, and they were the source of Eusebius' information, but that is only speculation.

  I sometimes post in various Yahoo forums, but I don't like the Yahoo format so much because it doesn't allow me to edit my posts, include different fonts and highlightings when posting directly, and I dislike the intrusiveness of ads. I enjoy the interface on this board very much. I actually haven't read much of the Jesus Mysteries forum, but I wonder if I might be too conservative for their taste?

  Gumby....I'm very happy you found our posts of interest. I have been afraid much of what I have been writing lately is too techincal and of too narrow interest for most.
• 

  gumby

  I have been afraid much of what I have been writing lately is too techincal and of too narrow interest for most.

  Hi Leolaia,

  I agree.....it too technical for the majority of the readers.......however nothing is wrong if only a few particpate. Many times even fluff threads have only a few involved. I think most people like a post that is fairly short and to the point, and easy to understand. Many subjects....such as this current one, make it hard to keep short and simple. You, and a few other women here, sure no how to humble a guy with your knowlege

  Gumby
• 

  LittleToe

  Gumby:
  At over 400 reads, I think people are interested, just maybe not confident of having anything worthy enough to add.

  The "research-three" aren't condescending, though, and I like that