[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #530
b-greek-digest Sunday, 1 January 1995 Volume 01 : Number 530
In this issue:
"Trumped up"?
AP Story [was: new fragments of Matthews gospel] (fwd)
Re: "Trumped up"?
Re: trumped up
Re: "Trumped up"?
Re: "Trumped up"?
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
"Trumped up"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 08:20:45 -0800
Subject: "Trumped up"?
On Dec 30, 1994, David Moore wrote:
>It is probably pertinent to remember that, had the crowd not
>asked Pilate for Barabbas's liberty, it is he who would have
>suffered crucifixion wiht the two LHSTAI who were crucified
>with Jesus. This may indicate they were being crucified for
>similar offenses as Barabbas. We should probably also
>remember that the trumped-up charge brought against Jesus
>was essentially political (i.e. that He was a rival to Caesar's
>kingship)....
Granted that the charge--"king of the Jews" if you accept the
gospels' report of the sign posted by the Romans over Jesus--
was political, i.e. that Jesus was a pretender to be a king--
when you say this was "trumped up" do you mean in fact, or
that this is the claim of the text?
I know that within the New Testament guild the view is
extremely strong that Jesus was "non-political." The gospels'
reported Roman charge against Jesus is believed, in keeping
with the gospels' claim, to be either a mistake or trumped-up.
But the question has to be asked: of all the executions done
by the Romans for sedition, undoubtedly there was an occasional
mistake here and there, but is this _likely_? Most of the
time, persons executed for sedition anciently were probably
involved in sedition, as a general statement. I think it is
sound historical method to follow the principle: he must have
done something or they wouldn't have charged him. This is
not good method in courtrooms today but it is good for about
92% probability in making historical judgements.
Maybe the two others with Jesus were also mistakes or trumped
up, by the same logic? Since the gospels have a motive to
declare Jesus innocent, does this not in itself cast this
claim of innocence under some suspicion? Which is being
more naive--to believe the gospels' claim or to believe the
Romans perceived accurately at the time? Methodologically
I suggest contemporary interpretations be privileged over
later constructions and claims. This is a statement of
historical method, not faith.
Greg Doudna
Marylhurst College
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: "Philip L. Graber" <pgraber@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 12:22:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: AP Story [was: new fragments of Matthews gospel] (fwd)
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 23:21:10 EST
From: Nichael Cramer <ncramer@BBN.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu>
Subject: AP Story [was: new fragments of Matthews gospel]
For those interested, this evening I came across the following AP
wire-story (in, of all places, the Brattleboro [VT] Reformer).
1] The article contains a brief comment by P. J. Parsons (about whom
someone asked ealier).
2] Although the fragment is not specifically identified, the description
below makes it clear that the mansucript in question is p64).
3] The final two paragraphs --concerning the presence of a putative nomen
sacrum-- seem particularly confusing.
Nichael
(As an aside, didn't Carsten Thiede publish a book in the mid-80s supporting
O'Callaghan's identification of the fragments from Cave 7 at Qumran with
various NT texts?)
***
Scholar believes Matthew pieces are oldest New Testament
BERLIN (AP) -- A German scholar believes he has identified the oldest
New Testament writings ever -- a finding that could date the Gospels
close to Jesus' lifetime.
The scholar, Carsten Thiede, said he believes three tiny fragments of
papyrus containing parts of the Gospel According to St. Matthew date
back to the last quarter of the first century.
"It would mean that the original Gospel would be earlier still, since
these are copies," said Thiede, a scholar at the Institute for Basic
Epistemological Research at Paderborn in western Germany.
The fragments,containing Greek writing, have been preserved since 1901
at a library in Magdalen College of the University of Oxford.
The oldest New Testament papyrus had been thought to be a fragment of
John 18 that was dated to the first quarter of the second century.
Thiede's find will buttress Bible scholarship of recent decades that
dates the Gospels earlier than previously believed, putting them closer
to Jesus' lifetime.
Thiede's findings will be published next week in the Journal for
Papyrology and Epigraphics, a German journal, although The Times of
London publishsed two stories over Christmas about his research.
P. J. Parsons, religious professor of Greek and fellow at Christ
Church college of Oxford, told The Times that he was skeptical the
fragments dated back to the first century.
"In a way, it's difficult to refute, but equally to confirm, since the
comparative material available from the first century A.D. is scant,"
he said.
The fragments were donated to Magdalen College by a graduate who
collected them while he was chaplain at the English Church in Luxor,
Egypt. Thiede started to examine them in February.
One fragment is about six-tenths of a square inch and the others 0.8
by 1.2 inches. Thiede said the fragments have about three lines each
of Greek writing, and the text is is from Matthew 26, the story of
Christ's crucifixion.
They were thought to be from the second century. But Thiede said they
had the same script and style as other Greek texts from the last
quarter of the first century.
The fragments show the scribe using abbreviations for Jesus' name, he
said. That would indicate that the earliest Christians had taken up
the Jewish custom of not writing or pronouncing the name of God, and
that they believed Jesus was god, he said.
That belief did not become Christian doctrine until the year 325, he
said. The Oxford fragments would indicate that some believe Christ
was God before then.
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 12:38:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: "Trumped up"?
Greg D.:
You have a good point. Claiming to be the Jewish Messiah was a very
political claim, or at least it was so understood at the time, a claim to
being king of Judea, all Jews everywhere in the world, and according to
Jewish aspiration, king of the whole earth.
Jesus did admit to Pilate that he was this king, and since the people
Pilate governed had themselves told him that he was a claimant to power,
Pilate would have been foolhardy to show the mercy that would have been
interpreted as weakness. The portrayal of Pilate in John is a very
convincing one of a Roman's reaction in such a situation: he doesn't
believe the Jewish leadership, he doesn't believe Jesus is any real
threat (because he was poor? unarmed? unsupported by leadership? Jesus's
own disavowal of ambition in 18:36?), and he couldn't care less about teh
Jewish religion, only the possibility of another riot. The notice he
sets up on the cross is marvelously ironic, since it would seem to
reinforce Roman victory Jewish claims to independence, whereas the Jews
wished Jesus to look merely like a fraud & imposter.
What remains to be understood is Jesus's concept of his "basileia" in
John 18:36 & elsewhere. I think "tou kosmou toutou" ought to be
interpreted narrowly, as referring not to the earth or universe, but
specifically to the Jewish leadership & Roman government, and his
statement "hE basileia hE emE ouk estin ek tou kosmou toutou ... ouk estin
enteuthen" "my kingdom is not of this world-order/system/government ...
it is not from here" should probably be interpreted to mean, not that
Jesus's rule was not over the people of the earth, but that he did not
derive his authority from preexisting official & legal sources (but
rather from God), or perpetuate it by ordinary means (armies & fighting).
Thus he was claiming an earthly allegiance, but one that was more
religious than political, and which wouldn't have disturbed Pilate's or
even the high priests' and rabbis' government any more than Jesus did
through his own conduct.
It is interesting to note that in John Jesus's confession omits the royal
apocalyptic imagery of the synoptics, and elsewhere it downplays his
royalty, except to show him as son of God his father, Resurrector, and
post-Resurrection Judge in the authority of God his father. One looks in
vain for that sense of his eventual political rule in a return to earth
as elsewhere in the NT. The latter may have been an already-existing
(but minority) Jewish tradition, that of the Messiah ben Joseph of later
tradition. It is hard to believe that the Jews would have developed the
idea of a dying Messiah, resurrected and/or followed by a reigning
Messiah ben David, AFTER Christianity, considering the awful similarity
to the NT ideas. In the NT the idea of the Messiah's temporary setback
until his 2nd Coming is presented as a novelty, but it may have already
been familiar & widespread.
An enlightening comparison is with Eusebius's account (EH 3.20) of
Domitian's interrogation of Jesus's grandnephews in the late 1st
century. Domitian was afraid of them politically, because of the Messiah
legend and their Davidic ancestry (established by informants). He found
out they were only poor farmers and that their grand-uncle's kingdom
would not be founded until it came down from heaven at the end of
history, so he released them "despising them as beneath his notice"
(G.A. Williamson tr.). The Romans were did not feel politically
threatened by the Jewish religion's prediction of a General Resurrection
and heavenly savior; they only worried when they saw a person on earth
with money, followers, and weapons. In John's account, at his end, Jesus
had none of those things.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: gaichele@adrian.adrian.edu
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 14:14:20 -0500
Subject: Re: trumped up
Just a small point: within the NT "guild" there is no "strong
view" that Jesus was non-political. It's true that this is the
view of most "conservative" (fundamentalist, evangelical, etc.)
scholars. It is certainly NOT the view of many others -- eg,
Horsley, Crossan, Mack, Myers, not to mention Marxists such as
Belo and liberation thinkers.
Also I would urge caution about conflating the various
crucifixion accounts. This cannot be done without making prior,
distinctly theological assumptions.
George Aichele
GAICHELE@adrian.adrian.edu
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 16:48:51 -0500
Subject: Re: "Trumped up"?
gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Greg Doudna) quoted and commented as follows:
>On Dec 30, 1994, David Moore wrote:
>>It is probably pertinent to remember that, had the crowd not
>>asked Pilate for Barabbas's liberty, it is he who would have
>>suffered crucifixion wiht the two LHSTAI who were crucified
>>with Jesus. This may indicate they were being crucified for
>>similar offenses as Barabbas. We should probably also
>>remember that the trumped-up charge brought against Jesus
>>was essentially political (i.e. that He was a rival to Caesar's
>>kingship)....
>Granted that the charge--"king of the Jews" if you accept the
>gospels' report of the sign posted by the Romans over Jesus--
>was political, i.e. that Jesus was a pretender to be a king--
>when you say this was "trumped up" do you mean in fact, or
>that this is the claim of the text?
>I know that within the New Testament guild the view is
>extremely strong that Jesus was "non-political." The gospels'
>reported Roman charge against Jesus is believed, in keeping
>with the gospels' claim, to be either a mistake or trumped-up.
>But the question has to be asked: of all the executions done
>by the Romans for sedition, undoubtedly there was an occasional
>mistake here and there, but is this _likely_? Most of the
>time, persons executed for sedition anciently were probably
>involved in sedition, as a general statement. I think it is
>sound historical method to follow the principle: he must have
>done something or they wouldn't have charged him. This is
>not good method in courtrooms today but it is good for about
>92% probability in making historical judgements.
>Maybe the two others with Jesus were also mistakes or trumped
>up, by the same logic? Since the gospels have a motive to
>declare Jesus innocent, does this not in itself cast this
>claim of innocence under some suspicion? Which is being
>more naive--to believe the gospels' claim or to believe the
>Romans perceived accurately at the time? Methodologically
>I suggest contemporary interpretations be privileged over
>later constructions and claims. This is a statement of
>historical method, not faith.
That the Gospel writers were partial to Jesus cannot be questioned.
Certainly, if they had not been partial to Him, we would not have their
testimony at all. But to want to toss out that testimony as unreliable would
seem to me to require something more concrete than the implication of
possible motive to falsify the evidence.
Greg Doudna asks, "Which is being more naive--to believe the gospels'
claim or to believe the Romans perceived accurately at the time?" The
Gospels state that Pilate, the Roman governor at the time, understood that
Jesus was being brought to judgement because of the envy of his enemies (Mat.
27:15-18; Mk. 15:9, 10). So what Greg is apparently wanting to do is to
completely discount the Gospels as historical witnesses - at least on the
matter at hand -. IMHO, one might come up with *any* conclusion if the only
testimony available is to be discounted completely.
Wouldn't a more fruitful approach be to consider the internal
consistency of the testimony? We know that Jesus, through most of His
ministry, avoided being openly (i.e. publicly) identified as the Messiah.
Although a lot of ink has gone through the presses on the subject of the Mess
ianic secret, IMO, a good case could be made for Jesus' keeping the Messianic
secret mainly to avoid crucifixion at a premature point in His ministry. It
was the one fact about Him that his enemies could use to acuse Him before the
Roman authorities.
The Fourth Gospel says that it was His status as Messiah that was
finally used to bring Him before Pilate with an accusation that required
death (Jn. 19:4-15). Although the Synoptics do not include this pericope,
Matthew indicates that Jesus had been represented to Pilate as "called the
Christ" (=Messiah), and Mark, in the same context, uses "King of the Jews"
(=Messiah?) (Mat. 27:22; Mk. 15:12). Also, all four Gospels agree that the
accusation placed over Jesus head on the cross was "the King of the Jews."
As to whether the Romans were justified in sending Jesus to the cross as
a political threat, one might consider Jesus' teaching as it has come down to
us (See especially Mat. 22:21 and parallels.), which reveals His emphasis as
spiritual, not political. The unanimous testimony of the Gospels and Acts is
that Pilate wanted to free Jesus (Mat. 27:20-24; Mk. 15:9-15; Lu. 23:13-25;
Jhn.19:12; Acts 3:13). This indicates that He was not even seen as a
political threat by the Roman authorities.
To sum up, if one is going to maintain that Jesus was justly crucified
for sedition against Rome, it would be necessary to ignore the best evidence
available - evidence that is internally consistent -. IMHO, method should be
willing to bend to consistent evidence.
David L. Moore
------------------------------
From: Dennis <dennis@lewis.mt.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 14:53:23 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: "Trumped up"?
On Sat, 31 Dec 1994, Greg Doudna wrote:
>
> I know that within the New Testament guild the view is
> extremely strong that Jesus was "non-political." The gospels'
> reported Roman charge against Jesus is believed, in keeping
> with the gospels' claim, to be either a mistake or trumped-up.
> But the question has to be asked: of all the executions done
> by the Romans for sedition, undoubtedly there was an occasional
> mistake here and there, but is this _likely_? Most of the
> time, persons executed for sedition anciently were probably
> involved in sedition, as a general statement. I think it is
> sound historical method to follow the principle: he must have
> done something or they wouldn't have charged him. This is
> not good method in courtrooms today but it is good for about
> 92% probability in making historical judgements.
> claim of innocence under some suspicion? Which is being
> more naive--to believe the gospels' claim or to believe the
> Romans perceived accurately at the time? Methodologically
> I suggest contemporary interpretations be privileged over
If I may jump in here ... if you believe the Gospel accounts about why
and how he was executed (crucified for sedition), instead of a more
normal death for a Judean man (accident, disease, etc.), why consider the
accounts unreliable when they also say he was innocent? If the Gospels
are rejected as reliable historical documents, why not assume he died of
natural causes?
Dennis Rardin
------------------------------
From: Moshe Shulman <mshulman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 17:20:37 -0800
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
You wrote:
> I was somehow under the impression that there was a complete Isaiah
scroll as
>well as various fragments found in the caves in the Qumran vicinity. Am
I
>mistaken?
It was foundand it was almost the exact same as the present Mesoretic
version.
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 17:35:21 -0800
Subject: "Trumped up"?
On Dec 31, 1994, David Moore wrote:
>Greg Doudna asks, "Which is being more naive--to believe the
>gospels' claim or to believe the Romans perceived accurately
>at the time?" The Gospels state that Pilate, the Roman
>governor at the time, understood that Jesus was being brought
>to judgement because of the envy of his enemies (Mat. 27:15-18;
>Mk. 15:9, 10). So what Greg is apparently wanting to do is to
>completely discount the Gospels as historical witnesses--at
>least on the matter at hand--. IMHO, one might come up with
>*any* conclusion if the only testimony available is to be
>discounted completely.
I don't think propaganda should be discounted completely as
historical testimony. In general, propaganda will refer to
known (and embarrassing) events or facts and then give a "spin"
or interpretation of them in keeping with apologetic purposes.
That Jesus was crucified by the Romans, while theoretically
arguable, appears uncontested by Tacitus. The next question is
whether that sign placed by Pilate is a fact or a gospel
invention, in which the criminal charge is said to have been
"king of the Jews". It is true the only evidence for this
sign is the gospels, but in light of the apologetic energy
devoted by the gospels to reinterpret the normal meaning of
"king" (pretender), "kingdom of God" (restored Solomonic
holy Jewish empire, with Romans paying tribute), and "messiah"
(warrior messiah), this is an argument to me for authenticity
of the charge reflected in that sign. The gospels claim
that not only the Romans, but Jesus's own disciples,
_misunderstood_ Jesus's language to mean what such language
usually meant at that time. The gospels are written post-70
when it is impolitic to be anti-Roman. It is not original
with me to see the gospels as (among other things) apologia
showing Christians were never anti-Roman--despite certain
appearances. Let me suggest that anytime the gospels correct
a "misunderstanding," that "misunderstanding" is what is
probably the truth, and the correction is the rewrite of
history.
>We know that Jesus, through most of His ministry...
Side question: why do you assume what Jesus was doing was a
"ministry"?
>avoided being openly (i.e. publicly) identified as the
>Messiah. Although a lot of ink has gone through the
>presses on the subject of the Messianic secret, IMO, a
>good case could be made for Jesus' keeping the Messianic
>secret mainly to avoid crucifixion at a premature point in
>his ministry.
I think this is correct, though I would put the period in
the sentence after the word "crucifixion", without the
qualifying clause. Whatever later purposes the messianic
secret becomes used for in Mark, a mundane original
explanation is deniability of (actual) seditious activity.
[omitting some]
>The Fourth Gospel says that it was His status as Messiah
>that was finally used to bring Him before Pilate with an
>accusation that required death (Jn. 19:4-15). Although
>the synoptics do not include this pericope, Matthew
>indicates that Jesus had been represented to Pilate as
>"called the Christ" (=Messiah), and Mark, in the same
>context, uses "King of the Jews" (=Messiah?) (Mat. 27:22;
>Mk. 15:12). Also, all four Gospels agree that the
>accusation placed over Jesus head on the cross was "the
>King of the Jews."
All of this I see as totally supporting the proposition
that Jesus was charged with being a messiah (kingly
pretender/Davidic messiah). If this is fact, this speaks
louder than the accompanying gospel claims to reinterpret
this language into non-contemporary or innovative meanings.
>The unanimous testimony of the Gospels and Acts is that
>Pilate wanted to free Jesus (Mat. 27:20-24; Mk. 15:9-15;
>Lu. 23:13-25; Jhn.19.12; Acts 3:13). This indicates that
>He was not even seen as a political threat by the Roman
>authorities.
I'm not saying this picture is impossible, only that it is
suspicious considering the source--the source being Gospel
authors to whom it is _very_ important to show that they
were not then, and never had been, anti-Roman. It is like
all Frenchmen worked for the Resistance--even the ones
working for the Occupation. What do you make of the
"Barabbas" tradition and the old idea that this is another
tradition of Jesus? "Son of [the] Father"...variant
manuscripts of Matthew saying his name was "Jesus"...
released to the Jews on the same day Jesus is said to
have also been released to the Jews. If it is a variant
tradition of Jesus, it is almost by definition a less
altered one and therefore more accurate tradition--so
accurate that it may have become unrecognizable as Jesus,
to the authors of the gospels.
Greg Doudna
Marylhurst College
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #530
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu