>>John does not exactly give an account of the baptism of Jesus; John
>>the Baptist refers back to it but does not give a full description,
>>so the omission of mention of the voice there does not seem
>>significant. The synoptics all mention a voice from heaven. They do
>>not say who heard it or how, but someone had to hear something for
>>the event to be recorded. <<
>S Shuan wrote:
One interpretation could be that the someone was Jesus, who received
a private revelation that was later expanded upon in the retelling.
However, the very fact of varying accounts support the argument that
the baptism of Jesus (which I believe was a historical event) was not
come to us unretouched <
I think we may be talking past each other. Yes, the gospel accounts
involve theological interpretation (e.g., the questions about how
much of John 3 is quotation versus commentary). However, the
declaration that a voice from heaven said something seems to me to
assert that there was some sort of direct verbal revelation, whether
it involved sound waves or an internal "hearing" and whatever the
audience.
Taken by themselves, the previously quoted comments could allow
relativism, or they could be an appeal to careful study and
consideration of the role of the authors and editors. I therefore
think it is important to note exceptions to the generalizations as
limits on the range of interpretation that is consistent with the
text.
>I find the conservative attempts to find a place for Darius the Mede
>in history quite implausible. No else seems to think Cyrus the Great
>was ever called Darius the Mede(a strange appellation for a Persian)
><
I find the attempts to find a place for the writing of Daniel in
Maccabean times quite implausible. No doubt we differ in our
standards of credibility. As Cyrus was half Median, the appellation
is not quite so strange as might be thought. After all, one man's
Mede is another man's Persian.
>The word "forger" is an unfortunate choice of words in a context
>where the writers of this type of literature (apocalyptic) typically
>took on the guise of an ancient hero.Our ideas about authorship were
>simply unknown in the ancient world. People should understand that
>and get past that. "The past is another country. People do things
>differently there". <
This is getting into the question of historicity and verifiability of
Scripture, an argument that has gone around on the list several times
without sign of resolution. At this point, I will simply note that
the specific case of Daniel would involve not only invocation of the
authority of a figure from the past (as seems likely for
Ecclesiastes), but also fraudulent justification of the authority of
the book by faking predictive prophecy. The apocalyptic parts of
Zechariah do not invoke an ancient hero, so I am doubtful about its
being integral to the literary genre. Invoking a famous source from
the past (or present) was recognized by the early centuries AD as a
dishonest way to try to gain authority for one's claims, as in the
pseudepigraphical gospels, letters, etc. (already becoming an issue
in the NT), some pagan attacks on Christianity, and some Christian
responses to these.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 28 2002 - 10:58:49 EDT