Whenever a new movie depicts the events associated with the Gospel accounts of Jesus's passion, i... more Whenever a new movie depicts the events associated with the Gospel accounts of Jesus's passion, it must decide how to portray the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Was Pilate a pawn in the hands of the Jewish leaders? Was he acting independently according to his own imperium? What responsibility did the Roman governor bear in the trial and condemnation of Jesus? These questions are not new, for early Christians dealt with the same issues and came to a variety of conclusions. By the Middle Ages, Pilate was considered a Saint in the Ethiopic Orthodox tradition. 1 Some scholars have suggested a progressively linear tendency of early Christian writers to exonerate Pilate. Paul Winter, for example, in his detailed study of the trial of Jesus observed: "The more removed from history, the more sympathetic a character [Pilate] becomes. " 2 Ernst Bammel likewise claimed that Christians from the second century to the Middle Ages tended to turn Pilate into a witness of Jesus's innocence. These modern assessments of Pilate being
Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel, Jul 1, 2007
Dating, authorship, and provenance. Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to the time of the Jewi... more Dating, authorship, and provenance. Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to the time of the Jewish War (c. AD 66-73). This dating is due, in part, to the Savior's reference to the destruction of Herod's Temple (see Mark 13:2) that occurred in AD 70. For scholars who do not accept the possibility of prophecy, Mark's Gospel could not have been written before that event. But as Joel Marcus has concluded, "In favor of a pre-70 dating is the probability that Jesus actually prophesied the Temple's destruction, as did other Jewish prophets down through the centuries;. .. a prophecy of its end, therefore, would not require a post-70 date." 11 Some early Christian traditions claim that Mark wrote his Gospel around the time of the death of Peter, which occurred in Rome in AD 64 or 65. 12 Mark is often identified with "John, whose surname was Mark," the missionary companion of Paul during the Apostle's first mission (Acts 12:25). According to the book of Acts, John Mark left that mission early to return to Jerusalem (see Acts 13:13). The cause for John Mark's early departure is unknown, but it later caused a temporary rift between Barnabas and Paul when, in preparation for their second mission, Barnabas wanted to bring along John Mark but Paul refused (see Acts 15:37-38). Whatever the reason, later tradition claims that Mark continued faithful in the gospel. Papias preserved the following information concerning Mark's later relationship with Peter: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote down accurately, but not in order, all that [Peter] remembered of the things said and done by the Lord. For [Mark] had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, a follower of Peter. Peter used to teach as the occasion demanded, without giving systematic arrangement to the Lord's sayings." 13 If this tradition is accurate, Mark did not actually witness the events he included in his Gospel but rather wrote down the things he heard Peter teach about the Savior's ministry. The importance, therefore, of Mark's Gospel is that it may record the memories of the leader of the fledgling post-resurrection Church. Internal evidence strongly suggests that the Gospel of Mark was written for a Gentile, or non-Jewish, audience. For example, Mark interprets Aramaic phrases for his readers, such as "Talitha cumi" (Mark 5:41) and "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34). Mark also explains Jewish customs and ideas. 14 If Mark's audience were Jewish and spoke Aramaic, there would be no need for such explanations. Significantly, Matthew, who was indeed writing to a Jewish audience, omits Mark's explanations of these Jewish concepts in his Gospel. 15 The Distinctive Testimonies of the Four Gospels
The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the everyday spoken languages of the ancie... more The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the everyday spoken languages of the ancient Israelites and the early Christians. 1 But because few readers today know those languages, we must rely on translations and hope the translators conveyed accurately the words, thoughts, and intents of the original writers as recorded on the original manuscripts. The English Bible William Tyndale (1494-1536) is the father of the English Bible; unfortunately, however, few Latter-day Saints know of him and of his profound contributions to the scriptures. 2 In violation of the law and in constant danger of imprisonment and death, Tyndale translated and published parts of the Bible into English and created the translation from which much of the King James Version ultimately descended. 3 Tyndale, like Martin Luther and other Reformers of their time, believed that the Bible should be in the language of the people and available to believers individually. The medieval Christian church, in contrast, taught that access to the Bible should be controlled by the church through the priests and that the only legitimate Bible was the Latin Vulgate translation that had been in use in the church for a thousand years-though very few Christians could read it. 4 Tyndale knew that the original Hebrew and Greek texts, in the words of the ancient prophets and apostles themselves, were more authoritative than any man-made translation could be. And he knew that the manuscripts in those languages that were closest to the writers' originals should be the sources from which translations should
Dating, authorship, and provenance. Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to the time of the Jewi... more Dating, authorship, and provenance. Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to the time of the Jewish War (c. AD 66-73). This dating is due, in part, to the Savior's reference to the destruction of Herod's Temple (see Mark 13:2) that occurred in AD 70. For scholars who do not accept the possibility of prophecy, Mark's Gospel could not have been written before that event. But as Joel Marcus has concluded, "In favor of a pre-70 dating is the probability that Jesus actually prophesied the Temple's destruction, as did other Jewish prophets down through the centuries;. .. a prophecy of its end, therefore, would not require a post-70 date." 11 Some early Christian traditions claim that Mark wrote his Gospel around the time of the death of Peter, which occurred in Rome in AD 64 or 65. 12 Mark is often identified with "John, whose surname was Mark," the missionary companion of Paul during the Apostle's first mission (Acts 12:25). According to the book of Acts, John Mark left that mission early to return to Jerusalem (see Acts 13:13). The cause for John Mark's early departure is unknown, but it later caused a temporary rift between Barnabas and Paul when, in preparation for their second mission, Barnabas wanted to bring along John Mark but Paul refused (see Acts 15:37-38). Whatever the reason, later tradition claims that Mark continued faithful in the gospel. Papias preserved the following information concerning Mark's later relationship with Peter: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote down accurately, but not in order, all that [Peter] remembered of the things said and done by the Lord. For [Mark] had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, a follower of Peter. Peter used to teach as the occasion demanded, without giving systematic arrangement to the Lord's sayings." 13 If this tradition is accurate, Mark did not actually witness the events he included in his Gospel but rather wrote down the things he heard Peter teach about the Savior's ministry. The importance, therefore, of Mark's Gospel is that it may record the memories of the leader of the fledgling post-resurrection Church. Internal evidence strongly suggests that the Gospel of Mark was written for a Gentile, or non-Jewish, audience. For example, Mark interprets Aramaic phrases for his readers, such as "Talitha cumi" (Mark 5:41) and "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34). Mark also explains Jewish customs and ideas. 14 If Mark's audience were Jewish and spoke Aramaic, there would be no need for such explanations. Significantly, Matthew, who was indeed writing to a Jewish audience, omits Mark's explanations of these Jewish concepts in his Gospel. 15 The Distinctive Testimonies of the Four Gospels
Whenever a new movie depicts the events associated with the Gospel accounts of Jesus's passion, i... more Whenever a new movie depicts the events associated with the Gospel accounts of Jesus's passion, it must decide how to portray the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Was Pilate a pawn in the hands of the Jewish leaders? Was he acting independently according to his own imperium? What responsibility did the Roman governor bear in the trial and condemnation of Jesus? These questions are not new, for early Christians dealt with the same issues and came to a variety of conclusions. By the Middle Ages, Pilate was considered a Saint in the Ethiopic Orthodox tradition. 1 Some scholars have suggested a progressively linear tendency of early Christian writers to exonerate Pilate. Paul Winter, for example, in his detailed study of the trial of Jesus observed: "The more removed from history, the more sympathetic a character [Pilate] becomes. " 2 Ernst Bammel likewise claimed that Christians from the second century to the Middle Ages tended to turn Pilate into a witness of Jesus's innocence. These modern assessments of Pilate being
Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel, Jul 1, 2007
Dating, authorship, and provenance. Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to the time of the Jewi... more Dating, authorship, and provenance. Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to the time of the Jewish War (c. AD 66-73). This dating is due, in part, to the Savior's reference to the destruction of Herod's Temple (see Mark 13:2) that occurred in AD 70. For scholars who do not accept the possibility of prophecy, Mark's Gospel could not have been written before that event. But as Joel Marcus has concluded, "In favor of a pre-70 dating is the probability that Jesus actually prophesied the Temple's destruction, as did other Jewish prophets down through the centuries;. .. a prophecy of its end, therefore, would not require a post-70 date." 11 Some early Christian traditions claim that Mark wrote his Gospel around the time of the death of Peter, which occurred in Rome in AD 64 or 65. 12 Mark is often identified with "John, whose surname was Mark," the missionary companion of Paul during the Apostle's first mission (Acts 12:25). According to the book of Acts, John Mark left that mission early to return to Jerusalem (see Acts 13:13). The cause for John Mark's early departure is unknown, but it later caused a temporary rift between Barnabas and Paul when, in preparation for their second mission, Barnabas wanted to bring along John Mark but Paul refused (see Acts 15:37-38). Whatever the reason, later tradition claims that Mark continued faithful in the gospel. Papias preserved the following information concerning Mark's later relationship with Peter: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote down accurately, but not in order, all that [Peter] remembered of the things said and done by the Lord. For [Mark] had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, a follower of Peter. Peter used to teach as the occasion demanded, without giving systematic arrangement to the Lord's sayings." 13 If this tradition is accurate, Mark did not actually witness the events he included in his Gospel but rather wrote down the things he heard Peter teach about the Savior's ministry. The importance, therefore, of Mark's Gospel is that it may record the memories of the leader of the fledgling post-resurrection Church. Internal evidence strongly suggests that the Gospel of Mark was written for a Gentile, or non-Jewish, audience. For example, Mark interprets Aramaic phrases for his readers, such as "Talitha cumi" (Mark 5:41) and "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34). Mark also explains Jewish customs and ideas. 14 If Mark's audience were Jewish and spoke Aramaic, there would be no need for such explanations. Significantly, Matthew, who was indeed writing to a Jewish audience, omits Mark's explanations of these Jewish concepts in his Gospel. 15 The Distinctive Testimonies of the Four Gospels
The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the everyday spoken languages of the ancie... more The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in the everyday spoken languages of the ancient Israelites and the early Christians. 1 But because few readers today know those languages, we must rely on translations and hope the translators conveyed accurately the words, thoughts, and intents of the original writers as recorded on the original manuscripts. The English Bible William Tyndale (1494-1536) is the father of the English Bible; unfortunately, however, few Latter-day Saints know of him and of his profound contributions to the scriptures. 2 In violation of the law and in constant danger of imprisonment and death, Tyndale translated and published parts of the Bible into English and created the translation from which much of the King James Version ultimately descended. 3 Tyndale, like Martin Luther and other Reformers of their time, believed that the Bible should be in the language of the people and available to believers individually. The medieval Christian church, in contrast, taught that access to the Bible should be controlled by the church through the priests and that the only legitimate Bible was the Latin Vulgate translation that had been in use in the church for a thousand years-though very few Christians could read it. 4 Tyndale knew that the original Hebrew and Greek texts, in the words of the ancient prophets and apostles themselves, were more authoritative than any man-made translation could be. And he knew that the manuscripts in those languages that were closest to the writers' originals should be the sources from which translations should
Dating, authorship, and provenance. Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to the time of the Jewi... more Dating, authorship, and provenance. Most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to the time of the Jewish War (c. AD 66-73). This dating is due, in part, to the Savior's reference to the destruction of Herod's Temple (see Mark 13:2) that occurred in AD 70. For scholars who do not accept the possibility of prophecy, Mark's Gospel could not have been written before that event. But as Joel Marcus has concluded, "In favor of a pre-70 dating is the probability that Jesus actually prophesied the Temple's destruction, as did other Jewish prophets down through the centuries;. .. a prophecy of its end, therefore, would not require a post-70 date." 11 Some early Christian traditions claim that Mark wrote his Gospel around the time of the death of Peter, which occurred in Rome in AD 64 or 65. 12 Mark is often identified with "John, whose surname was Mark," the missionary companion of Paul during the Apostle's first mission (Acts 12:25). According to the book of Acts, John Mark left that mission early to return to Jerusalem (see Acts 13:13). The cause for John Mark's early departure is unknown, but it later caused a temporary rift between Barnabas and Paul when, in preparation for their second mission, Barnabas wanted to bring along John Mark but Paul refused (see Acts 15:37-38). Whatever the reason, later tradition claims that Mark continued faithful in the gospel. Papias preserved the following information concerning Mark's later relationship with Peter: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote down accurately, but not in order, all that [Peter] remembered of the things said and done by the Lord. For [Mark] had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, a follower of Peter. Peter used to teach as the occasion demanded, without giving systematic arrangement to the Lord's sayings." 13 If this tradition is accurate, Mark did not actually witness the events he included in his Gospel but rather wrote down the things he heard Peter teach about the Savior's ministry. The importance, therefore, of Mark's Gospel is that it may record the memories of the leader of the fledgling post-resurrection Church. Internal evidence strongly suggests that the Gospel of Mark was written for a Gentile, or non-Jewish, audience. For example, Mark interprets Aramaic phrases for his readers, such as "Talitha cumi" (Mark 5:41) and "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34). Mark also explains Jewish customs and ideas. 14 If Mark's audience were Jewish and spoke Aramaic, there would be no need for such explanations. Significantly, Matthew, who was indeed writing to a Jewish audience, omits Mark's explanations of these Jewish concepts in his Gospel. 15 The Distinctive Testimonies of the Four Gospels
Uploads
Papers by Frank Judd