Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote:In other words, if Paul or the interpolator were inspired by Hosea 6:2, a close (albeit modified) version of Hosea 6:2 would be featured (but I do not see how it could be done because of the two "us" and the "we" in it ). I just do not see that in 1 Cor 15:4. But I see a much closer relationship between 1 Cor 15:4 & Lk 24:45-46.

I think you and MrMacSon and outhouse are getting very deep into parallelomania. You are not the only ones doing that: apologists, theologians & other Christians have been doing that for centuries (but drew different conclusions: in order to declare everything about Christ had been prophesied in the OT).

Again the misuse of "parallelomania". Maybe, you should read the Wikipedia entry about Pesher.
I have the suspicion that gMark is a further development of the pesher of the second type, using Isaiah 53 as the scaffold (that's why it's mentioned in the second - or first if you discount the title - line), but then pulls lots of elements from other places. The sheer existence of this kind of Jewish literature as interpretations of OT texts in completely different ways makes any criticism of "parallelomania" sound a like a very weak position.

As an aside, you can even bring the "Homeric" influences into this as an attempt to make the whole text more readable. For gMark, this would include cutting out most of the direct OT quotes that disturb the flow of the text. For a pesher-like precursor text, this cutting out would even make sense.
(for Stephan: replace "gMark" with gospel text of your choice)

Bernard Muller wrote:In other words, if Paul or the interpolator were inspired by Hosea 6:2, a close (albeit modified) version of Hosea 6:2 would be featured (but I do not see how it could be done because of the two "us" and the "we" in it ). I just do not see that in 1 Cor 15:4. But I see a much closer relationship between 1 Cor 15:4 & Lk 24:45-46.

You know, Bernard, I honestly think it is quite clever what you are arguing here. I like it; I really do. I am very sympathetic to this section of 1 Corinthians 15 being (mostly) an interpolation, and I wish I could argue as easily as you do that 1 Corinthians 15.4 is actually using Luke 24.46 as the "scripture" in question, not anything from Hosea (or anywhere else in the OT). This would even line up with another pseudo-Pauline passage calling Luke scripture in 1 Timothy 5.18. I would love that.

Here are the lines in question:


Okay, so Luke and Hosea share the same verb for resurrection. But Paul and Hosea share the same passive voice for that verb (in Luke he resurrects or stands up; in Hosea we are resurrected or stood up; in Paul he is raised). Paul and Hosea also share the same word order for "the third day" (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ) against Luke (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). Luke and Paul both use the third person ("he") instead of the first person ("we") found in Hosea. Luke and Paul also both have something about it being "written". (Naturally Hosea would not have this.)

Also, the contours, as it were, of Paul and Hosea are similar to each other and dissimilar to Luke, since Luke adds in suffering and "from the dead".

I would not necessarily say that Luke and Paul are closer (let alone "much" closer) to each other than either is to Hosea. They all share differences and similarities. For some reason the differences between Hosea and the other two loom larger in your mind than the differences between, say, Paul and Luke.

I think you and MrMacSon and outhouse are getting very deep into parallelomania. You are not the only ones doing that: apologists, theologians & other Christians have been doing that for centuries (but drew different conclusions: in order to declare everything about Christ had been prophesied in the OT).

You are right. Apologists, theologians, and other Christians have been mining the scriptures for centuries in order to declare that everything about Christ had been prophesied in the OT: including Paul, the evangelists, and the other early Christian writers. They are the real parallelomaniacs. We modern parallelomaniacs are just trying to stay on their trail. And of course parallelophobes like yourself will have trouble staying on that trail.

Do you at least think that Luke was thinking of Hosea when he wrote about Jesus resurrecting on the third day?

(for Stephan: replace "gMark" with gospel text of your choice)

My Lord, if Stephan hates blind assumptions about the synoptics being productive in history HE ABSOLUTELY LOATHES discussions about the productivity of the prophetic writings. That someone thinks that 'the Bible' puts the Torah and Isaiah and the rest of the loser prophets on the same level is fine. What do you expect. That theologians accept that the Gemara has higher authority where it and the Law disagree ... again what do you expect? But when people keep drawing from loser texts like 'Isaiah,' 'Hosea' and the like and pretend that these could have been seminal in the development of the gospel.

The Jews and the Samaritans came from the same basic assumptions about God and text. Why don't white people get this? Let me spell it out for them again:

1. God
2. Sinai
3. Moses
4. gift
5. Torah

You can pretend to argue whether 'torah' here means ten commandments or 5 or 4 books of Moses but we all know the modern Jews misrepresent the truth when they say narrative Torah. But the important point is that even though the narrative Torah wasn't believed to be given by God these other loser texts could never have been the basis to the formation of the gospel. They just couldn't have been. The seminal event in the history of humanity was described in (what is now) the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. If it didn't happen in the Sea or on the Mountain it doesn't matter and couldn't have been important for second Moses, the author of the gospel narrative. It's that simple.

to Ben,

Okay, so Luke and Hosea share the same verb for resurrection. But Paul and Hosea share the same passive voice for that verb (in Luke he resurrects or stands up; in Hosea we are resurrected or stood up; in Paul he is raised). Paul and Hosea also share the same word order for "the third day" (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ) against Luke (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). Luke and Paul both use the third person ("he") instead of the first person ("we") found in Hosea. Luke and Paul also both have something about it being "written". (Naturally Hosea would not have this.)

Do you at least think that Luke was thinking of Hosea when he wrote about Jesus resurrecting on the third day?

"Luke" used "the third day" five times before 24:46 (9:22, 13:32, 18:33, 24:7 & 21) as relating to the timing of Jesus' (alleged) resurrection. So I doubt very much that when "Luke" wrote 24:46, she was inspired by Hosea 6:2 for "the third day".
Here I explained why "the third day" replaced "after three days" (from gMark) in the Lukan works and most of gMatthew: http://historical-jesus.info/77.html

About "rise", "Luke" used that word 32 times in 27 verses in her gospel, 9 times before 24:46, with the meaning of "rise from the dead": Lk 8:55, 9:8 &19, 11:32, 15:18, 16:31, 18:33, 24:7. In Lk 16:31, we have "rise from the dead" as in Lk 24:46.
So I am very doubtful that "Luke", when writing "rise" in 24:46, was inspired by the "rise" in Hosea 6:2.

They are the real parallelomaniacs. We modern parallelomaniacs are just trying to stay on their trail.

Yes both are parallelomaniacs (but for a different purpose).

And of course parallelophobes like yourself will have trouble staying on that trail.

True, I am not following the trail of Christian apologists and theologians. But I do accept parrallels (as in the cases of Jonah & "calming the sea" and Jesus on a foal & Zachariah). But about you, you put the bar so low that almost anything vaguely similar in the OT can be accepted as inspiration for a gospel author. If you call me parrallelophobe for that, so be it.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:"Luke" used "on the third day" five times before 24:46 (9:22, 13:32, 18:33, 24:7 & 21) as relating to the timing of Jesus' (alleged) resurrection. So I doubt very much that when "Luke" wrote 24:36, she was inspired by Hosea 6:2 for "on the third day".
Here I explained why "the third day" replaced "after three days" (from gMark) in the Lukan works and most of gMatthew: http://historical-jesus.info/77.html

About "rise", "Luke" used that word 32 times in 27 verses in her gospel, 9 times before 24:46, with the meaning of "rise from the dead": Lk 8:55, 9:8 &19, 11:32, 15:18, 16:31, 18:33, 24:7. In Lk 16:31, we have "rise from the dead" as in Lk 24:46.
So I am very doubtful that "Luke", when writing "rise" in 24:46, was inspired by the "rise" in Hosea 6:2.

Where do you think the idea of resurrecting on the third day came from in the first place? How did Christians get the idea that Jesus rose on the third day? Your link (which I have read before) has an entire section on why somebody (Mark, in your view) might have wished to delay the resurrection until after 3 days. But it does not really explain why anybody would want to change "after three days" to "on the third day".

And about the parallelophobia I was talking about, what I meant is that the early Christian authors themselves found stretched parallels all over the OT. It is not actually parallelomania on our part to acknowledge what they were doing.

Ben.

to Ben,

Where do you think the idea of resurrecting on the third day came from in the first place? How did Christians get the idea that Jesus rose on the third day? Your link (which I have read before) has an entire section on why somebody (Mark, in your view) might have wished to delay the resurrection until after 3 days. But it does not really explain why anybody would want to change "after three days" to "on the third day".

But I explained that in my blog post: essentially, that "on the third day" makes sense because the time between the death and the alleged resurrection of Jesus is no more than 40 hours, spread over 3 calendar days (Roman or Jewish, does not matter). It cannot be considered "after 3 days". I quoted many examples from the OT and Josephus' works in order to justify that.

And about the parallelophobia I was talking about, what I meant is that the early Christian authors themselves found stretched parallels all over the OT. It is not actually parallelomania on our part to acknowledge what they were doing.

How do you know they were doing that, in the case of Hosea 6:2? What stretched parallels? your examples and the one of robert j were not stretched. But they were just taken out-of-context or modified (or both) to fit the author's purpose. They show considerable parallelism in the words being used and their sequence. I do not see that between Hosea 6:2 and 1 Cor 15:4 & Lk 24:46. Yes some common words, but they have been used before Lk 24:46 a lot (in the case of gLuke). And in Hosea 6:2 it is a plurality of persons who will rise, not one person who could be assumed to be Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

Where do you think the idea of resurrecting on the third day came from in the first place? How did Christians get the idea that Jesus rose on the third day? Your link (which I have read before) has an entire section on why somebody (Mark, in your view) might have wished to delay the resurrection until after 3 days. But it does not really explain why anybody would want to change "after three days" to "on the third day".

But I explained that in my blog post: essentially, that "on the third day" makes sense because the time between the death and the alleged resurrection of Jesus is no more than 40 hours, spread over 3 calendar days (Roman or Jewish, does not matter). It cannot be considered "after 3 days". I quoted many examples from the OT and Josephus' works in order to justify that.

It sounds like you are saying that Jesus really rose after 40 hours, or at least that his tomb was found empty after 40 hours. But I know you consider the empty tomb story to be a fiction. So where did the idea come from that Jesus rose after about 40 hours?

Ben.

Secret Alias wrote:

(for Stephan: replace "gMark" with gospel text of your choice)

My Lord, if Stephan hates blind assumptions about the synoptics being productive in history HE ABSOLUTELY LOATHES discussions about the productivity of the prophetic writings. That someone thinks that 'the Bible' puts the Torah and Isaiah and the rest of the loser prophets on the same level is fine. What do you expect. That theologians accept that the Gemara has higher authority where it and the Law disagree ... again what do you expect? But when people keep drawing from loser texts like 'Isaiah,' 'Hosea' and the like and pretend that these could have been seminal in the development of the gospel.

I guess you will have to live with that.

There's a difference between what you take to develop the theology and what text you take as base of your new writings.

Ben C. Smith wrote: And about the parallelophobia I was talking about, what I meant is that the early Christian authors themselves found stretched parallels all over the OT. It is not actually parallelomania on our part to acknowledge what they were doing.

Ben.

Ben it amazes me we have to still teach this to amateur historians.

This should be common knowledge.

I see a perceived historical event taking place, and I see these authors trying to flesh out details searching the OT to build divinity and authority. It does not always point to a OT literary origin in that fashion, as many of the people would have known these OT text orally and applied such to what they perceived orally, or even a combination of both.


My only issue again, is the certainty our friend places on all of his details.

Secret Alias wrote: You can pretend to argue whether 'torah' here means ten commandments or 5 or 4 books of Moses but we all know the modern Jews misrepresent the truth when they say narrative Torah.

.

Isnt the context of what we are dealing with not about the general public, but what the Hellenistic NT authors wrote?

Who were very well versed in all of the OT text.

Sort of makes your point non sequitur doesn't it?