Covering all topics of history and the interpretation of texts, posts here should conform to the norms of academic discussion: respectful and with a tight focus on the subject matter.
Solo wrote:And again, if you have a minute, can you look up in TLG “euaggelion” as noun before Paul, if there is any hint anyone used as Paul in connection with the “preaching gospel to the afflicted” as per Isa 61:1? I suspect not.
That is crazy specific. Jewish writings before Paul written in Greek are rare and fragmentary, and why would Greco-Roman authors use such a noun in connection with Isaiah 61.1?
Just as a noun meaning "good news", εὐαγγέλιον gets quite a few hits in Plutarch; to wit:
Plutarch, Life of Demetrius 17: To this Antigonus replied: "Hail to thee also, by Heaven! but for torturing us in this way, thou shalt undergo punishment; the reward for thy good tidings [τὸ εὐαγγέλιον] thou shalt be some time in getting."
I see a few hits in Homer, such as:
Homer, Odyssey 14, line 152: And let me have a reward for bearing good tidings [], as soon as he shall come, and reach his home; clothe me in a cloak and tunic, goodly raiment.
There are others, as well.
Ben.
Thanks, Ben
"Crazy - specific" my query may well be. But badly as I expressed my intent, the issue whether Paul was building an original theological schema far beyond the boundaries of Jewish theological discourse of the time, remains. Are there any other examples of use of, 'euaggelion' in the sense of the noun that we know it, i.e. good news of salvation in the eschaton, before Paul ? And if not, does it not seem more probable that Mark put the Pauline word into the mouth of Jesus (1:15) rather than extracted from some assumed oral tradition of Jesus' ministry in Galilee ?
Thanks. My question is more about what Mark thinks of the accusation that Jesus said he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. This exact prediction is placed only here in the gospel, and it is placed on the mouths of false witnesses. The saying in Mark 13.1-2 lacks anything about rebuilding the temple, and does not predict that Jesus himself will destroy it (or the Herodian buildings, or anything); furthermore, it is presented as a private conversation between Jesus and his disciples. The options for what Mark intends begin to multiply:
The accusation is false, and is a complete invention of the false witnesses.
The accusation is false, and is a garbled overhearing of the conversation in 13.2 and/or 9.31 (both of which are presented as private conversations).
The accusation is true, but the saying actually goes unnarrated in the gospel; furthermore, the saying is misunderstood (taken too literally).
The accusation is true, but the saying actually goes unnarrated in the gospel; furthermore, the saying is understood correctly.
If John 2.19 were actually a verse somewhere in Mark, nobody would bat an eye: Jesus said it, the Jews heard it, and they reported it at his hearing with a slightly tendentious rewording, since in John he does not explicitly say that he himself will destroy the temple. But without such a verse earlier in Mark, it is not necessarily clear to me what Mark intends.
Crossan, IIRC, thinks that this saying had some currency amongst early Christians, and that each one interpreted it as best s/he could, so to speak. It goes in one direction in Matthew 26.61 and Mark 14.58, in another in John 2.19, in yet another in Acts 6.14, and in quite another again in Thomas 71. If this saying had currency amongst early Christians, then that would indicate some sort of tradition before Mark, one to which Mark is reacting. This would explain why the saying receives no introduction in Mark: the evangelist expects his readership to have already heard it, and he is simply putting it into what he believes to be its proper context (perhaps favoring #1 or possibly #2 above).
But I have not given this matter much thought for many years now, and am more than ready to hear different takes on it.
67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, [even] Jesus. 68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
Literally/Physically True?
No. The context of the Trial is Literal/Physical and Jesus never literally/physically said this. In the context of the trial the testimony is false.
Yes. Literally/Physically Peter was with Jesus.
Figuratively/Spiritually True?
Yes. Jesus indicated that he would be the cause of the destruction of the Temple and his resurrection would be the replacement. The irony is that while trying to convict Jesus with false Literal/Physical testimony the witness has unwittingly convicted Jesus with true Figurative/Spiritual testimony.
Yes. Peter never "knew" (understood/accepted) Jesus figuratively/spiritually. The irony is that while trying to defend himself with false Literal/Physical testimony Peter has unwittingly convicted himself with true Figurative/Spiritual testimony.
Solo wrote:And again, if you have a minute, can you look up in TLG “euaggelion” as noun before Paul, if there is any hint anyone used as Paul in connection with the “preaching gospel to the afflicted” as per Isa 61:1? I suspect not.
That is crazy specific. Jewish writings before Paul written in Greek are rare and fragmentary, and why would Greco-Roman authors use such a noun in connection with Isaiah 61.1?
Just as a noun meaning "good news", εὐαγγέλιον gets quite a few hits in Plutarch; to wit:
Plutarch, Life of Demetrius 17: To this Antigonus replied: "Hail to thee also, by Heaven! but for torturing us in this way, thou shalt undergo punishment; the reward for thy good tidings [τὸ εὐαγγέλιον] thou shalt be some time in getting."
I see a few hits in Homer, such as:
Homer, Odyssey 14, line 152: And let me have a reward for bearing good tidings [], as soon as he shall come, and reach his home; clothe me in a cloak and tunic, goodly raiment.
There are others, as well.
Ben.
Thanks, Ben
"Crazy - specific" my query may well be. But badly as I expressed my intent, the issue whether Paul was building an original theological schema far beyond the boundaries of Jewish theological discourse of the time, remains. Are there any other examples of use of, 'euaggelion' in the sense of the noun that we know it, i.e. good news of salvation in the eschaton, before Paul ? And if not, does it not seem more probable that Mark put the Pauline word into the mouth of Jesus (1:15) rather than extracted from some assumed oral tradition of Jesus' ministry in Galilee ?
I suspect Mark's usage of the term came from a cultural matrix of eschatological thought patterns of which both Paul and Augustan propaganda are instances. This is the Priene inscription:
It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance excelled even our anticipations, surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings [εὐανγελίων] for the world that came by reason of him, which Asia resolved in Smyrna.
isa 52: 7
7 ὡς ὥρα ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέων, ὡς πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης, ὡς εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά, ὅτι ἀκουστὴν ποιήσω τὴν σωτηρίαν σου λέγων Σιών· βασιλεύσει σου ὁ Θεός.
7 as a season of beauty upon the mountains, as the feet of one preaching glad tidings of peace, as one preaching good news: for I will publish thy salvation, saying, O Sion, thy God shall reign http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-te ... 43&page=52
Romans 10.15...“How timely are the feet of those who bring good news of good things.”
15 πῶς δὲ κηρύξουσιν ἐὰν μὴ ἀποσταλῶσι; καθὼς γέγραπται· ὡς ὡραῖοι οἱ πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων εἰρήνην, τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων τὰ ἀγαθά. http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-te ... ans/10.asp
Ben C. Smith wrote:
I suspect Mark's usage of the term came from a cultural matrix of eschatological thought patterns of which both Paul and Augustan propaganda are instances. This is the Priene inscription:
It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance excelled even our anticipations, surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings [εὐανγελίων] for the world that came by reason of him, which Asia resolved in Smyrna.
Ben.
I am not sure I would agree to the equivalence of Paul and Augustan propaganda. One is clearly hugely more present in Mark than the other. This said, I am entirely on side with Paul's and Mark's consciously paralleling their Christ cult on the Augustan model and it is even possible that the syntactical hookup of "archē" and "euaggelion" (Phl 4:15, Mk 1:1) indicates awareness of both writers of the Priene incipit. Nonetheless, as Paul Nadim Tarazi points out, Paul's reference to "euaggelion" is invariant; it is always singular and with definite article with the exception of the two references in Romans which are to "my gospel". Rom 16:25 is likely interpolation, but like 2 Ti 2:8, it serves as an important witness the tradition of associating "the gospel" (!) with Paul alone. Mark's usage follows that of Paul.
Best,
Jiri
Last edited by Solo on Sat May 28, 2016 6:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, [even] Jesus. 68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
Literally/Physically True?
No. The context of the Trial is Literal/Physical and Jesus never literally/physically said this. In the context of the trial the testimony is false.
Yes. Literally/Physically Peter was with Jesus.
Figuratively/Spiritually True?
Yes. Jesus indicated that he would be the cause of the destruction of the Temple and his resurrection would be the replacement. The irony is that while trying to convict Jesus with false Literal/Physical testimony the witness has unwittingly convicted Jesus with true Figurative/Spiritual testimony.
Yes. Peter never "knew" (understood/accepted) Jesus figuratively/spiritually. The irony is that while trying to defend himself with false Literal/Physical testimony Peter has unwittingly convicted himself with true Figurative/Spiritual testimony.
FWIW: I think it is still false, and most likely references here the Jewish mainstream blaming of the notzrim for the crazy war with Rome, 67-73, which destroyed the Second Temple, devastated Judea and caused mass exile.
Mark, despite badmouthing the disciples as a faithless "historical witness" of Jesus, clearly aims to bring their followers to the Cross. The "false accusation" shows sympathy for the scattered flock without a shepherd who are in bad need of a gospel. In my reading of the early Christian history, Matthew availed himself of the offer of the gospel and trampled Mark's pearls in a most spectacular fashion. Read the closing chapter of the Sermon(7) as a scathing attack on the spiritualist conceit of Paul and Mark. The first two verses are a counter to 1 Co 2:15.
" house" in this saying signifies the social arrangements that dominate religious institutions. Jesus announces not only that victory is going to the new community, but also that the destruction is irreversible.
Jesus will not rebuild the Temple, but he will become the new Temple
" house" in this saying signifies the social arrangements that dominate religious institutions. Jesus announces not only that victory is going to the new community, but also that the destruction is irreversible.
Jesus will not rebuild the Temple, but he will become the new Temple
Which could also be another way of saying the temple has fallen, and do not expect it to be rebuilt. What you have with jesus is all you will every have.
" house" in this saying signifies the social arrangements that dominate religious institutions. Jesus announces not only that victory is going to the new community, but also that the destruction is irreversible.
Jesus will not rebuild the Temple, but he will become the new Temple
Which could also be another way of saying the temple has fallen, and do not expect it to be rebuilt. What you have with jesus is all you will every have.
Yes, that is what it says.
Only the ten commandments were the ones that God gave to Moses at Sinai. The other 600 plus commandments are the invention of men and therefore they are not The Way to God. The Temple is to be replaced by a new system based only on repentance , prayer and observance of the new moral code. If we travel on The Way we will find God , and God will redeem Israel, that is the basic message of Jesus.
Solo wrote:
This said, I am entirely on side with Paul's and Mark's consciously paralleling their Christ cult on the Augustan model
Jiri
Not just Paul or Mark. All the NT text.
But I would not narrow down the definition to the Augustan model, and simply say they were after the Emperors proselytes and often mirrored the Emperors divinity.
But badly as I expressed my intent, the issue whether Paul was building an original theological schema far beyond the boundaries of Jewish theological discourse of the time, remains. Are there any other examples of use of, 'euaggelion' in the sense of the noun that we know it, i.e. good news of salvation in the eschaton, before Paul ? And if not, does it not seem more probable that Mark put the Pauline word into the mouth of Jesus (1:15) rather than extracted from some assumed oral tradition of Jesus' ministry in Galilee ? 
