tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post7154967393159490114..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: The Giant Jesus and the Walking, Talking CrossMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-85662290396781002942017-05-11T23:39:13.798-04:002017-05-11T23:39:13.798-04:00The giant Jesus reminds me of some mosaics of Sams...The giant Jesus reminds me of some mosaics of Samson found in synagogues throughout the ancient near east. It was common for heroes to become giants in text and artwork when what they accomplished was thought to be larger than life. Not unlike modern western tales of Paul Bunyan or John Henry. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11019202737447265594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-67653566693554293702011-09-04T23:27:46.262-04:002011-09-04T23:27:46.262-04:00Do you think, without emendation, the size of Jesu...Do you think, without emendation, the size of Jesus and the angels might be related to the Shiur Kommah literature?<br /><br />As for the talking cross, I immediately though of the talking lamp-stands in Hellenistic erotic poetry. They are so often chosen as the narrator of the poem (however unlikely it is that they might speak) because they are the only witness to the lover's tryst (cf. the statues of Priapic in the Priapea).<br /><br />Not to say that the text isn't corrupt (my knowledge of text criticism is rudimentary), but it does seem possible to explain and accept the coherency of the extant readings.Anebohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05865020806337781472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-37958354573437679072011-08-12T22:15:25.832-04:002011-08-12T22:15:25.832-04:00Thanks, Joseph. I'd encourage you to wait for...Thanks, Joseph. I'd encourage you to wait for the paper, but I appreciate your attempts to work out what I may be saying and to comment on them. Very briefly, my proposal is what is known as a conjectural emendation. That's where one conjectures a reading that gives rise to a text. In the case of the Gospel of Peter, we only have this one, late text. The other fragments you mention are not of the passage in question, and there is a massive divergence where there is a parallel, which may point to real diversity in the textual history. But more anon.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-89250058181916716062011-08-10T19:38:17.534-04:002011-08-10T19:38:17.534-04:00JW:
Again, based on the normal standards of what i...JW:<br />Again, based on the normal standards of what is textual criticism evidence, you do not appear to have any evidence for the offending reading. The larger question is what exactly are the standards of SBL for acceptance. <br /><br />The evidence for the text is something greater than you have shown here. Ehrman writes in "Lost Christianities" page 23 that we probably have 3 fragments from GoP from the 2nd and 3rd century, one of which falls within the area covered by the much later text and per Ehrman's implication, parallels well. <br /><br />Another problem for you, which adds to the pedigree of the offending word, is that we have some PROVENANCE for this text. It was buried with a monk so presumably he would have preferred an accurate copy since he appears to have bet his life on it.<br /><br /><br />JosephJoeWallackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10666074795187377455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-9532536923733435712011-08-04T16:11:06.955-04:002011-08-04T16:11:06.955-04:00Thanks, Joseph, for your comments on what you have...Thanks, Joseph, for your comments on what you have read so far.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-43093648580726702362011-08-04T11:08:24.986-04:002011-08-04T11:08:24.986-04:00JW:
You do not appear to have anything other than ...JW:<br />You do not appear to have anything other than "An Argument from Incredulity" here. However, having an animated cross here is not a Tiger Stauros type putt. It is a much shorter one. It is not just a point or just a primary point but the dominant point of the narrative here of dead stuff coming back to life. Similarly, the cross is not just a symbol here or just the most important symbol, it is THE symbol. What would be out of place is if the offending part had no connection to the setting (like, I don't know, say the word in question was "Hippopotamus"). In the larger picture GoP parallels best to "Matthew" and is pre-Canon so it should not be surprising that the author was compelled to interpret how Jesus had left the building and discharged his responsibilities.<br /><br />You are starting out with no External support and the difficult reading principle going against you. To mount a serious counter-offensive, your proposal needs SCOPE. But here the scope supports the text:<br /><br />1 Jesus being supported implies he is incapable of speech.<br /><br />2 The conjunction shows that what follows is different from what precedes.<br /><br />3 What follows is animate.<br /><br />4 Jesus is beyond the heavens, and it is the soldiers who are witnessing this, so the implication is that the voice is directed to the ground.<br /><br />5 Brown demonstrates in "The Death of the Messiah" that GoP best parallels "Matthew" and "Matthew" has an implication that dead Jesus was busy visiting the dead while on the cross. The best/only witness to the question here of witnessing to the dead would be the cross. <br /><br />6 "Matthew" has the Angels minister to Jesus at the beginning (after tangling with Satan). So why not at the end after tangling with Death and Hell. <br /><br />You are pricking against the guts of the scope here. The number of times your argument resorts to "if" and similar wording is a clue. <br /><br />As a cross test, reverse the argument, and assume the offending word was "crucified one". Now consider the difficult reading principle and the scope above.<br /><br />Ehrman's righteous observation is not the problem here.<br /><br /><br />JosephJoeWallackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10666074795187377455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-27441068997312096512011-07-28T15:49:09.063-04:002011-07-28T15:49:09.063-04:00Looking forward to eventually reading the publishe...Looking forward to eventually reading the published version of your work on this. You almost have me convinced with what you've said thus far.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-32298759531924403472011-07-27T01:40:54.911-04:002011-07-27T01:40:54.911-04:00Thanks for your interesting comments, Bob.Thanks for your interesting comments, Bob.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-50018285018319822302011-07-26T22:05:04.084-04:002011-07-26T22:05:04.084-04:00Hi Mark - re stretching, you will remember the met...Hi Mark - re stretching, you will remember the metaphor incline your ear common in the Psalm translations of yesteryear (to rhyme with ear). The verb is also used in the Psalms to mean 'stretch' specifically in the stretching of heaven e.g. 18.10<br />and he stretches heavens and descends<br />with dark turbulence under his feet (part of the theophany in 18)<br />and 144.5 יְהוָה stretch out your heavens and come down<br />Touch hills and they will smoke<br /><br />If such images had made it into the NT then we might have had some more stimulus to inventive interpretation. But - there's the issue - you can't read everything ever written and the canon-formers even if they had mixed motives established something we have enough trouble with.Bob MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.com