Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by DCHindley »

Michael BG wrote:
DCHindley wrote: I too have wondered why Jesus' suffering/execution is connected to the Passover sacrifice in the NT, but is connected to the Day of Atonement ritual in Barnabas. The common wisdom is that Barnabas is more primitive than the NT Gospels, but why did the interpretive emphasis shift from the Day of Atonement sacrifice(s), which at least meshes with the NT theology of Christ's death as an atoning sacrifice for sins of ignorance, to a Passover sacrifice?
What do you mean by “Barnabas”?
Maxwell Staniforth in “Early Christian Writings” (1968) wrote, that the Epistle of Barnabas “would have been issued round about the year 130; and this, in fact, is the date now preferred by most scholars” (p 190).
That proposed date of composition is just a guess on the part of "most" scholars. The "Barnabas" who is supposed to be the author is also held by some to be the companion of Paul mentioned in 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9 & 2:13; and Col. 4:10; not to mention 24 times in Acts.

My comment was meant to suggest that the book of Barnabas represents an earlier phase of the develop of Jesus tradition than that found in the NT.

There are plenty of scholars who place the creation of some or all NT books, especially Acts and the Gospels, well after 130 CE, although I am not necessarily in agreement or disagreement with any particular position or dating scenario.

DCH
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Michael BG »

DCHindley wrote:
Michael BG wrote:
DCHindley wrote: I too have wondered why Jesus' suffering/execution is connected to the Passover sacrifice in the NT, but is connected to the Day of Atonement ritual in Barnabas. The common wisdom is that Barnabas is more primitive than the NT Gospels, but why did the interpretive emphasis shift from the Day of Atonement sacrifice(s), which at least meshes with the NT theology of Christ's death as an atoning sacrifice for sins of ignorance, to a Passover sacrifice?
What do you mean by “Barnabas”?
Maxwell Staniforth in “Early Christian Writings” (1968) wrote, that the Epistle of Barnabas “would have been issued round about the year 130; and this, in fact, is the date now preferred by most scholars” (p 190).
That proposed date of composition is just a guess on the part of "most" scholars. The "Barnabas" who is supposed to be the author is also held by some to be the companion of Paul mentioned in 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9 & 2:13; and Col. 4:10; not to mention 24 times in Acts.

My comment was meant to suggest that the book of Barnabas represents an earlier phase of the develop of Jesus tradition than that found in the NT.

There are plenty of scholars who place the creation of some or all NT books, especially Acts and the Gospels, well after 130 CE, although I am not necessarily in agreement or disagreement with any particular position or dating scenario.

DCH
Perhaps my question was not very clear and I was hoping for something more.

My question should have been:
I think there are three documents that include the word “Barnabas”, when you wrote “Barnabas” did you mean the Epistle of Barnabas. If so how can you say that the common wisdom is that the Epistle of Barnabas is more primitive than the NT gospels especially when Maxwell … about the year 130 … is the date now preferred by most scholars …?

The theological language of E of Barnabas seems later than the NT gospels – eg - incarnation, passion and church.

Wouldn’t it be easier to look at the E of Barnabas and the way the author uses the Old Testament as evidence that the whole of Jesus’ passion was created out of the Old Testament?
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2107
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Charles Wilson wrote:
Adam wrote:The wording is changed more than the story because the original eyewitness write-up of it was in Aramaic. In the translation to Greek contrasting words were used that mean the same thing.
Neither Mark nor John copied each other. They stem from a common source.
The following is from Teeple's Literary Origin of the Gospel of John, ISBN-13: 978-0914384007. Simply: A great book. Great.
"S" = Source. "E" = Editor. "R" = Redactor.

S:
l Then Jesus [arth. ], six days before the Passover, came into Bethany
E:
Lazarus [an.] was [suggested by 11:1], whom Jesus [an. P66, B, S*; lac. in P75] raised from the dead.,
S:
2 Then they made for him a supper there,
...
This is Teeple's Analysis of the Chapter 12 Passge. Notice that there is no "G" (= Gnostic) evidence that Teeple sees. This is strictly a matter of Source and Redactor with Editor making an appearance to tell us the Jesus did indeed raise Lazarus from the dead.

All well and good. Is there any evidence that any of this is worth looking into? Yes. Verse 1: "Then Jesus [arth. ], six days before the Passover, came into Bethany "

Why does this matter?

Numbers 9: 4 - 14 (RSV):

[4] So Moses told the people of Israel that they should keep the passover.
[5] And they kept the passover in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, in the wilderness of Sinai; according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so the people of Israel did.
[6] And there were certain men who were unclean through touching the dead body of a man, so that they could not keep the passover on that day; and they came before Moses and Aaron on that day;
[7] and those men said to him, "We are unclean through touching the dead body of a man; why are we kept from offering the LORD's offering at its appointed time among the people of Israel?"
[8] And Moses said to them, "Wait, that I may hear what the LORD will command concerning you."
[9] The LORD said to Moses,
[10] "Say to the people of Israel, If any man of you or of your descendants is unclean through touching a dead body, or is afar off on a journey, he shall still keep the passover to the LORD.
[11] In the second month on the fourteenth day in the evening they shall keep it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
[12] They shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone of it; according to all the statute for the passover they shall keep it.
[13] But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, yet refrains from keeping the passover, that person shall be cut off from his people, because he did not offer the LORD's offering at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin.
[14] And if a stranger sojourns among you, and will keep the passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the passover and according to its ordinance, so shall he do; you shall have one statute, both for the sojourner and for the native."

Numbers 19:

[11] "He who touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days;
[12] he shall cleanse himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean; but if he does not cleanse himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not become clean.
[13] Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him.
[14] "This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.
[15] And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean.
[16] Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
[17] For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water shall be added in a vessel;
I was a bit pressed for time with this original Post and I left out the thread that ties all of this together.

Teeple has labeled the first Verse of Chapter 12 as from "Source". I agree. It contains a gem of a clue that the Original was a a Story that was not about a "Jesus" or a savior/god: Six days before Passover, "Jesus" comes to Bethany and has contact with "Lazarus/Eleazar". "Lazarus" is the Greekified form of "Eleazar", as I have been told, and the Passage is already identified by this as Symbolic since the Mishmarot House of Eleazar has been "dead" for decades.

John 11: 14 (RSV):

[14] Then Jesus told them plainly, "Laz'arus is dead..."

Teeple identifies the addition of "Lazarus" in this Verse as the work of the Editor.
Teeple also identifies Verse 2 in Chapter 12 as the work of the Editor:

E:
Lazarus [an.] was [suggested by 11:1], whom Jesus [an. P66, B, S*; lac. in P75] raised from the dead.

[[Note: " [an ] " is "anarthrous", an identifying link in the chain of Teeple's analysis of the Greek. For ex., anyone could be referenced by the name "Donald" but "The Donald" would be an Identifier for someone writing about Donald Trump.]]

Thus, we have a great Tension here. If there is a "Source", does it have to reference "Jesus" in the Story we get in GJohn? NO!

We may then proceed to look at the Gem of a Clue to note something of great importance. The quotes from the Book of Numbers are concerning the Touching of Dead Bodies. The Eternal Reasons that if people touch dead bodies, they may not attend Passover but that if the touching of dead bodies occurs, what shall the innocent do since they are COMMANDED to attend Passover or be Cut-Off from the people of Israel? AHH...they are given a Second Passover a month after the Passover of Nisan. Therefore, Joseph of Arimathea cannot attend the First Passover but MAY ATTEND the Second Passover. "It's not my Fault!"

What about "Jesus?" Here is the very subtle -and I believe intentional - part of the Source Document. "Jesus" visits the Tomb of Lazarus Six Days before Passover. Lazarus is D-E-A-D! Jesus, in the Original Source, cannot Raise Lazarus (A HUMAN Lazarus...) from the dead since Lazarus has been dead four days (Hosea 6). He is around the dead body of Lazarus with utensils for cooking and Lazarus is with the Mourners. This Jesus may also be a "Sojourner". It is easy to construct a Speech from this - "They killed Lazarus/Eleazar but he shall NEVER die!!!" - but the events outstrip such a speech: Jesus cannot go to the First Passover. He is ritually unclean. He must be washed and prepared over a week's time to become Clean again and Jesus is within the week's Time Frame.

There is thus a Logical Problem that cannot be covered by Apologetix. If the intention was to rewrite a Jewish Story to a different end (and it was...), it cannot be covered by simply having an Editor add the word "Lazarus" to a sentence. It cannot be covered by an Editor adding a sentence about "...Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead...".

This also leads to the examination of the Source. If it was a Jewish Story, who would have had knowledge of the Intricacies of dealing with Dead Bodies in the Book of Numbers? There is one Teacher who may have been a Priest at the End of the Mishmarot Priesthood, a person who began a School at Yavneh with the express permission of Vespasian, someone who argued with a Roman Commander over the numbers in Numbers that don't add up: Johanen ben Zakkai.

If you believe that there was a "Source" (or Sources), your work has just started. You have to not only show that the Source was about a savior/god "Jesus", you must also examine the "Source" you claim and show that it is devoid of another Jewish Story that left Clues as to authorship and Hebraic Detail before there was a "Jesus Story".

CW
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by DCHindley »

Michael BG wrote:My question should have been:

I think there are three documents that include the word “Barnabas”, when you wrote “Barnabas” did you mean the Epistle of Barnabas.
Yes.
If so how can you say that the common wisdom is that the Epistle of Barnabas is more primitive than the NT gospels especially when Maxwell … about the year 130 … is the date now preferred by most scholars …?
This is just my POV. As I had earlier stated: "I am not necessarily in agreement or disagreement with any particular position or dating scenario". Actually, wasn't it you who had suggested that date? I just took that to mean that you believed that date was a likely one. I am not disputing any date you proposed.

Right now, at least, my opinion would put the development of NT style Christianity some time after the war of 66-74 CE. Give it about 20 years to simmer down to the kind of theology we see in the NT, where Christ is a divine being who becomes a man to offer himself as a vicarious sacrificial death for the salvation of mankind. It is no longer Judean messianism, but the founding myth of a mystery religion.

The Epistle of Barnabas, and I am going from memory as I haven't read it for several years, does not seem to be referring to the myth of a mystery religion. The feeling I had was that EoB probably preceded NT style Christianity developed (as I think, about 95 CE), but it could also be a parallel development of speculation about the significance of Jesus and his fate.
The theological language of E of Barnabas seems later than the NT gospels – eg - incarnation, passion and church.
But the NT books, especially the Paulines, are certainly talking about incarnation, passion and church.
Wouldn’t it be easier to look at the E of Barnabas and the way the author uses the Old Testament as evidence that the whole of Jesus’ passion was created out of the Old Testament?
Maybe, maybe not.

The DSS peshers collectively serve as an example of a real person (the Teacher of Righteousness) whose significance for the writer's/writers' own time was linked to "OT" passages in Judean scriptures. I do not think it likely that the ToR of the DSS peshers was fabricated out of those "OT" passages which the writer(s) of the peshers referred.

DCH
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote:
If so how can you say that the common wisdom is that the Epistle of Barnabas is more primitive than the NT gospels especially when Maxwell … about the year 130 … is the date now preferred by most scholars …?
This is just my POV. As I had earlier stated: "I am not necessarily in agreement or disagreement with any particular position or dating scenario". Actually, wasn't it you who had suggested that date? I just took that to mean that you believed that date was a likely one. I am not disputing any date you proposed.
A lot of this goes back to one's overall view of early Christianity.

If we imagine something of a vacuum in which ordinary Christians are doing little more than celebrating a single version of the Eucharist week in and week out, with perhaps a few hymns and baptisms thrown in, then all the development of ideas has to fall to the writers; in that case, the only way to imagine the stuff in Barnabas (at such a late date) influencing the stuff in the gospels (at an earlier date) is to posit a lost source for the stuff in Barnabas; and, if one is wont to imagine a vacuum in the first place, then one is probably loathe to posit lost sources without reams of evidence.

If, on the other hand, we imagine all kinds of unattested Christians doing a lot more in their regular meetings and other interactions than simply passing down a few ceremonies, then the extant texts become written samples from a vibrant tradition that is flowing along behind the scenes; in that case, the relative dates do not matter as much, and Barnabas can easily represent traditions that undergird the gospels.

These two different approaches (obviously containing between them a host of possible positions along a spectrum) are, to my mind, so distinctive as to require investigation before very many conclusions are reached in early Christianity. Without examining one's underlying assumptions, there is no way one will be able to escape certain conclusions that fall in ranges much smaller than what is available if one looks at both sides.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Michael BG »

DCHindley wrote:
Michael BG wrote:If so how can you say that the common wisdom is that the Epistle of Barnabas is more primitive than the NT gospels especially when Maxwell … about the year 130 … is the date now preferred by most scholars …?
This is just my POV.
DCHindley wrote:The common wisdom is that Barnabas is more primitive than the NT Gospels
It is confusing to write “the common wisdom is …” when what you mean is “I think”. This is why I posted that I thought the common wisdom as expressed by Maxwell Staniforth was different. Also I dated it, in case it had changed since then.

If the EoB was written after the gospels this does not mean that the author did not have access to older traditions as well, which he also used.
DCHindley wrote:Right now, at least, my opinion would put the development of NT style Christianity some time after the war of 66-74 CE. Give it about 20 years to simmer down to the kind of theology we see in the NT, where Christ is a divine being who becomes a man to offer himself as a vicarious sacrificial death for the salvation of mankind. It is no longer Judean messianism, but the founding myth of a mystery religion.

The Epistle of Barnabas, and I am going from memory as I haven't read it for several years, does not seem to be referring to the myth of a mystery religion. The feeling I had was that EoB probably preceded NT style Christianity developed (as I think, about 95 CE), but it could also be a parallel development of speculation about the significance of Jesus and his fate.
This seems to mean that you think Mark and the Pauline letters were written after 95 CE!
DCHindley wrote:
Michael BG wrote:The theological language of E of Barnabas seems later than the NT gospels – eg - incarnation, passion and church.
But the NT books, especially the Paulines, are certainly talking about incarnation, passion and church.
In chapter 5 of the EoB there is “The incarnation of the Son of God was intended to bring …” and “the actual form of his passion he willingly embraced” (Staniforth p199). I couldn’t find “incarnation” in the New Testament and I could only find “passion” used in this way at Acts 1:3.
DCHindley wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Wouldn’t it be easier to look at the E of Barnabas and the way the author uses the Old Testament as evidence that the whole of Jesus’ passion was created out of the Old Testament?
Maybe, maybe not.

The DSS peshers collectively serve as an example of a real person (the Teacher of Righteousness) whose significance for the writer's/writers' own time was linked to "OT" passages in Judean scriptures. I do not think it likely that the ToR of the DSS peshers was fabricated out of those "OT" passages which the writer(s) of the peshers referred.

DCH
Sorry I meant that most of the details Mark has about the death of Jesus come from the OT, not that Mark created Jesus out of the OT.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by DCHindley »

Michael BG wrote:
DCHindley wrote:The common wisdom is that Barnabas is more primitive than the NT Gospels
It is confusing to write “the common wisdom is …” when what you mean is “I think”. This is why I posted that I thought the common wisdom as expressed by Maxwell Staniforth was different. Also I dated it, in case it had changed since then.
I like to think that what I think is common wisdom (said tongue in cheek). :cheeky:
DCHindley wrote:Right now, at least, my opinion would put the development of NT style Christianity some time after the war of 66-74 CE. Give it about 20 years to simmer down to the kind of theology we see in the NT, where Christ is a divine being who becomes a man to offer himself as a vicarious sacrificial death for the salvation of mankind. It is no longer Judean messianism, but the founding myth of a mystery religion.

The Epistle of Barnabas, and I am going from memory as I haven't read it for several years, does not seem to be referring to the myth of a mystery religion. The feeling I had was that EoB probably preceded NT style Christianity developed (as I think, about 95 CE), but it could also be a parallel development of speculation about the significance of Jesus and his fate.
This seems to mean that you think Mark and the Pauline letters were written after 95 CE!
Yes and no.

I think that the Judean war was a crucial catalyst to synthesize the kind of "Christology" we see in the NT. I also think that this did not immediately crystalize, but that this required time, and 20 years seems reasonable to me.

So, yes, Mark (and the other Gospels) were written after 95. In the case of the Pauline letters, I think that the letters as we have them are the product of roughly the same period. IMHO, they have been edited to include the christ theology, which they did not originally have in them. Since the Christology seems "rougher" to me than what we find in the Gospels, they may be earlier relatively speaking.

Sorry but have a training session to return to ...

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Wed May 25, 2016 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2843
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by andrewcriddle »

Michael BG wrote:

In chapter 5 of the EoB there is “The incarnation of the Son of God was intended to bring …” and “the actual form of his passion he willingly embraced” (Staniforth p199). I couldn’t find “incarnation” in the New Testament and I could only find “passion” used in this way at Acts 1:3.
incarnation here is a paraphrase the Greek is HLThEV EN SARKI came in the flesh

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by DCHindley »

Just for clarification on the "incarnation" of Max. Staniforth, here is the Greek text of J B Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (APF, 1869-1885-1890, as digitized by anonymous Bibleworks users); and two English translations by Roberts & Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (APE, vol. 1, 1885), and William Hone, The Apocryphal New Testament (HON, 1820, and note that he divides chapters differently than later editors did):

(APF Brn 5:11)
(HON Brn 4:15)
(APE Brn 5:11)
Οὐκοῦν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς τοῦτο ἐν σαρκὶ ἦλθεν Wherefore the Son of God came in the flesh for this cause The Son of God therefore came in the flesh with this view,
ἵνα τὸ τέλειον τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἀνακεφαλαιώσῃ that he might fill up the measure of their iniquity, that He might bring to a head the sum of their sins
τοῖς διώξασιν ἐν θανάτῳ τοὺς προφήτας αὐτοῦ who have persecuted his prophets unto death. who had persecuted His prophets to the death.

As I have been reading through the letters of Paul again recently, right now in the Pastorals, I remember finding (RSV 1Ti 3:16 "He was manifested in the flesh" (BGT, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί).

"Passion" is one of those old fashioned translations of παθημάτων ("sufferings", Phi 3:10; 2 Cor 1:5,) or some form of πάθος ("a suffering") in early Christian writers like Eusebius (1.9.4; 2.17.21; 3.7.7; 3.29.3; 8.2.4; 9.9.10; and 10.3.3), or Ignatius (in the short forms of Ephesians 18:2; 20:1; Magnesians 5:2 & 11:1; Trallians 1:1 & 11:2; Romans 6:3; Philadelphians 9:2; Smyrnaeans 1:2 5:3 & 7:2; etc. etc., and even in Ep. of Barnabas 5:13 & 6:6*), which was very popular in the 19th and early 20th century.

DCH

*This is not being presented as a complete list of such cases ...
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Passover & the passion narrative before Mark.

Post by Michael BG »

andrewcriddle wrote:
Michael BG wrote:In chapter 5 of the EoB there is “The incarnation of the Son of God was intended to bring …” …
incarnation here is a paraphrase the Greek is HLThEV EN SARKI came in the flesh

Andrew Criddle
I should have expected that – elsewhere Staniforth translations are problematic.
DCHindley wrote:Just for clarification on the "incarnation" of Max. Staniforth, here is the Greek text of J B Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (APF, 1869-1885-1890, as digitized by anonymous Bibleworks users); and two English translations by Roberts & Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (APE, vol. 1, 1885), and William Hone, The Apocryphal New Testament (HON, 1820, and note that he divides chapters differently than later editors did):

(APF Brn 5:11)
(HON Brn 4:15)
(APE Brn 5:11)
Οὐκοῦν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς τοῦτο ἐν σαρκὶ ἦλθεν Wherefore the Son of God came in the flesh for this cause The Son of God therefore came in the flesh with this view,
ἵνα τὸ τέλειον τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἀνακεφαλαιώσῃ that he might fill up the measure of their iniquity, that He might bring to a head the sum of their sins
τοῖς διώξασιν ἐν θανάτῳ τοὺς προφήτας αὐτοῦ who have persecuted his prophets unto death. who had persecuted His prophets to the death.

As I have been reading through the letters of Paul again recently, right now in the Pastorals, I remember finding (RSV 1Ti 3:16 "He was manifested in the flesh" (BGT, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί).
Sorry the problem was Staniforth’s translation. I do not see the phrase “came in the flesh” as being the same as “The incarnation”.
I don’t think “appeared in the flesh” is the same as “came in the flesh” and I Tim might not be written by Paul.
Perhaps Roms 8:3 would be a better text –
“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (quote provided by Bernard)
However I argued against Bernard that it is possible this is not an incarnation text as sending could be like the sending of a prophet and Paul just means that Jesus was a perfect Adam and flesh is a reference to sin and Paul is saying Jesus didn’t have any sin.
DCHindley wrote:"Passion" is one of those old fashioned translations of παθημάτων ("sufferings", Phi 3:10; 2 Cor 1:5,) or some form of πάθος ("a suffering") in early Christian writers like Eusebius (1.9.4; 2.17.21; 3.7.7; 3.29.3; 8.2.4; 9.9.10; and 10.3.3), or Ignatius (in the short forms of Ephesians 18:2; 20:1; Magnesians 5:2 & 11:1; Trallians 1:1 & 11:2; Romans 6:3; Philadelphians 9:2; Smyrnaeans 1:2 5:3 & 7:2; etc. etc., and even in Ep. of Barnabas 5:13 & 6:6*), which was very popular in the 19th and early 20th century.

DCH

*This is not being presented as a complete list of such cases ...
In Acts 1:3 it is Jesus’ suffering, but this phrase is not used in the gospels in this way - Jesus has to suffer. Phi 3:10 is a parallel with Paul’s sufferings (- Jesus’ sufferings) and seems different from the suffering of Jesus. 2 Cor 1:5 also seems to be “sufferings”. These might be earlier versions. The sufferings of Jesus became later Jesus’ suffering. All of Ignatius’ letters could be as late as or later than 130 CE as I am not convinced they are genuine.
Post Reply