Dick Harfield - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Dick Harfield

Through the centuries countless commentaries have been written, tracts have been distributed, deb... more Through the centuries countless commentaries have been written, tracts have been distributed, debates have raged over the identification of the servant in this
passage. Christians see in this passage the literal fulfilment by Jesus of all it contains. Jews see it as a historical overview of Jewish history and the suffering to be endured by the nation of Israel until its final redemption.

I propose that the author was writing to his own contemporaries about a person well known to them, in terms they readily understood. There was no mystery.

Using information from Paul's epistles and excluding consideration of Acts of the Apostles, I arr... more Using information from Paul's epistles and excluding consideration of Acts of the Apostles, I arrive at a radically different timeframe for the crucifixion. This raises some doubt as to whether Pontius Pilate was in Judea at the time of the crucifixion.

Most commentators would say Acts of the Apostles portrays Paul very favourably. After all, nearly... more Most commentators would say Acts of the Apostles portrays Paul very favourably. After all, nearly everything we know about Paul comes from Acts. The stories of Paul, at least after his conversion, are invariably positive and never criticise him directly. If the author of Acts did portray Paul unfairly, he was too subtle to be seen as doing so.

Mark did not create Christianity but wrote a compelling account about a faith that he already kne... more Mark did not create Christianity but wrote a compelling account about a faith that he already knew. Some modern scholars recognise that in so writing, the author we now know as Mark developed the story’s characters in order to focus on Jesus himself. At least some of these characters were probably created by Mark, who seems to have assigned them names that helped develop hidden insights.

Matthew 2:23 refers to a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene: “And he came and dwelt i... more Matthew 2:23 refers to a prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene: “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Scholars have long noted that there is no prophecy anywhere in the Old Testament that could associate Jesus with being called a Nazarene. Yet we can not just brush the mystery aside and say it is not worth looking for answers. There has to be an explanation for Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus will be called a Nazarene: one that makes good sense for Matthew’s author.

Recent scholars have said that Mark should be read as story, not as history. They say the compos... more Recent scholars have said that Mark should be read as story, not as history. They say the composer of this story used sophisticated storytelling techniques, developed the characters and the conflicts, and built suspense with deliberateness, telling the story to generate certain insights and responses in the audience. My thesis is that the Gospel of Mark was intended for novices, and that secret knowledge of the true Christ would be imparted to initiates. In order to make this thesis I need to show why Mark was not a history of Jesus Christ, and show how initiates could be persuaded to abandon beliefs they had absorbed so thoroughly, in favour of a new set of beliefs.

The study of Mark’s Gospel as a narrative is not new. In this paper I propose that Mark’s Gospel... more The study of Mark’s Gospel as a narrative is not new. In this paper I propose that Mark’s Gospel is based in its entirety on a parallel structure that is both grand in its scope yet simple in its conception. Because the structure encompasses the entire gospel and includes every major aspect of the narrative, I refer to it as Mark’s framework structure.

Some modern scholars say that one of the most certain things about the gospel stories is that Joh... more Some modern scholars say that one of the most certain things about the gospel stories is that John baptised Jesus. However, suspicions are raised when we learn that the passage in Mark 1:11 is composed from Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1 in the Greek Septuagint. In this paper I look at the evidence to establish how likely it was that John the Baptist knew Jesus.

I propose that the author was writing to his own contemporaries about a person well known to them, in terms they readily understood. There was no mystery.