The Function of 'Prophetic Fulfillment' in the Passion Narrative

[outhouse]

J. D. Crossan was my first exposure to the idea that early Christians had fashioned entire events out of scriptural precedent, and my own experience growing up in church confirmed that such a thing was all too likely to have happened.

Ben.

It did take place. But were these valued previous text the historical core they built the NT around? Or did they build these text around a current historical core. Or a percentage of each ?

We need to be able to identify these differences one way or the other, and in proper context. Can that even be done? or just guessed at using education?

[outhouse]

Peter, you transferred my latest post to the trash, that is your ~nowhere in particular~ section, which is
meant "to have fun here", in the thread "various personal attacks" viewtopic.php?f=8&t=407&start=440
I am insulted as having the insight of a noble watermelon and after a mild reply, this is what I get.

Cordially, Bernard

Part of having advanced knowledge and creating possible or plausible hypothesis is that one lets the other have a certain degree of artistic freedom while one is fleshing out his hypothesis.

What I see as levels of knowledge have increased to the scholarly level, is that many just flat our reject and ignore some kinds of others conclusion. There is no need to comment if the work is so far away from what yours is, there is no need to debate it.

You may be right, and he may be in left field. Or it is possible others might key in later and further develop this into something substantial.

Since the forum is taking a more academic turn for the better, lets embrace it as well as the professional courtesy required at higher levels of study. You will find with that attitude you might get the same in return.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

It did take place. But were these valued previous text the historical core they built the NT around? Or did they build these text around a current historical core. Or a percentage of each ?

We need to be able to identify these differences one way or the other, and in proper context. Can that even be done? or just guessed at using education?

It could be possible that the criterion "according to the scriptures" was for parts of the early christians a way to speak about Jesus "in truth", a criterion which makes the knowledge about (the earthly and heavenly) Jesus validly (how scholars today need a scholarly method.) I think then you can't divide "cores" and "texts" in the sense of a "built around".

[neilgodfrey]

J. D. Crossan was my first exposure to the idea that early Christians had fashioned entire events out of scriptural precedent, and my own experience growing up in church confirmed that such a thing was all too likely to have happened.

Ben.

It did take place. But were these valued previous text the historical core they built the NT around? Or did they build these text around a current historical core. Or a percentage of each ?

We need to be able to identify these differences one way or the other, and in proper context. Can that even be done? or just guessed at using education?

That's what form criticism and the criteria of authenticity were all about.

The former is founded upon the assumption of oral tradition (a hypothesis that can be refuted from both specialists' understanding of how oral tradition works in practice and from a comparative literature study showing the so-called evidence for oral sources is not a necessary indicator of oral sources at all); and the latter have repeatedly been demonstrated to be logically invalid.

Comparative literary studies compare our literary evidence (the gospels) with other literature known to be used by the evangelists, and study the literary techniques common in the day, and demonstrate the sources are almost entirely literary. Strip away what is attributed to literary sources and we have removed the bandages from the invisible man. There is nothing there.

This is unlike any other historical person in ancient times who is a mix of myth and reality. It is always easy to remove the myth and still find plenty of real person left.

[outhouse]

I think then you can't divide "cores" and "texts" in the sense of a "built around".

Sorry, Im not sure I follow you bud.

The problem I see is Peter showed us many parallels that used the OT text, some with a high degree of certainty.


Now context of how these were used, can be divided up as I described. It only happened one way or the other, or a percentage, when dealing with parallels.

Jesus could be 100% mythical, yet the later authors believed oral and written traditions, then used the OT text to rhetorically to build authority around what they believed to be a historical event.

We know they scoured and plagiarized the OT text. Im sure some OT text were used in these parallels and had primacy in the new traditions being written.

[outhouse]

The name "spin" suggests something to do with being a disc jockey, or perhaps in the recording industry (although nobody today knows what "spinning vinyl" means, never having seen 33.33 RPM vinyl records, much less have a turntable to play one).

Huh. My first guess was that it was a play on the word "spin," suggesting slant or bias. A little bit postmodern, if so.

Was used on RMP on his shirts and coffee cups

Presents theology with a twist.
But without the spin.

[Clive]

They Simonized it

In Arthur Miller's play, Death of a Salesman published in 1949, the terms Simonize and Simonizing are used on several occasions, e.g. "...Remember those days? The way Biff used to simonize that car? The dealer refused to believe there was eighty thousand miles on it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simoniz

I understand there is also an urban slang meaning....

Does Wiki need editing to include this coinage?:-)

And is GMark highly polished or the earliest example of Simonizing?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The problem I see is Peter showed us many parallels that used the OT text, some with a high degree of certainty.

Now context of how these were used, can be divided up as I described. It only happened one way or the other, or a percentage, when dealing with parallels.

Jesus could be 100% mythical, yet the later authors believed oral and written traditions, then used the OT text to rhetorically to build authority around what they believed to be a historical event.

We know they scoured and plagiarized the OT text. Im sure some OT text were used in these parallels and had primacy in the new traditions being written.

I just think that also the "first" authors could have done that with "real historical events" (or what they believed as such).

[MrMacSon]

... the later authors believed oral and written traditions, then used the OT text to rhetorically to build authority around what they believed to be a historical event.

What the later authors believed is virtually irrelevant: what happened before their time is the key.

[outhouse]

The former is founded upon the assumption of oral tradition (a hypothesis that can be refuted from both specialists' understanding of how oral tradition works in practice and from a comparative literature study showing the so-called evidence for oral sources is not a necessary indicator of oral sources at all); and the latter have repeatedly been demonstrated to be logically invalid.


.

Thanks you Neil.

But I don't think they all can all be hand waved away, or it would be a slam dunk case for a literary origin.

Oral traditions that are developing all over the illiterate Diaspora are really not up for debate.

Comparative literary studies compare our literary evidence (the gospels) with other literature known to be used by the evangelists, and study the literary techniques common in the day, and demonstrate the sources are almost entirely literary. Strip away what is attributed to literary sources and we have removed the bandages from the invisible man. There is nothing there.

But wouldn't that also apply with equal plausibility whether there was something there or not, correct?

There would be no precedent for a first time real historical event.

Your also going to the exact heart of what im asking, and I don't think you have enough information to posit that the valued previous text was the historical core they built the NT around.

Its pretty obvious many believed whole hearted in a crucified man, which could have been a literary creation previously, but that's another topic.