[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #508
b-greek-digest Saturday, 10 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 508
In this issue:
Markan Mysteries [was: Cephas]
[none]
Re: Markan Mysteries [was: Cephas]
Re: eph 2:1 b-greek@virginia.edu
Re: Cephas (Weeden)
Re: Markan Mysteries [was: Cephas]
Pauline Mystery
Re: Pauline Mystery
nt-greek-request@virginia.edu
Re: Cephas
Re: Cephas
Re: John 8:58
Re: John 8:58
IMHO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kraft <kraft@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 01:52:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Markan Mysteries [was: Cephas]
Various levels of understanding/status among the disciples;
conflict with other early Christian positions/leaders;
cryptic expressions and hidden truths in Mark --
does anyone read Morton Smith anymore (did anyone ever?)?
It might be a stimulating experience, whether you agree or not.
Bob Kraft, UPenn
------------------------------
From: Marhain <me0u4090@liverpool.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 10:40:51 +0100
Subject: [none]
unsubscribe b-greek me0u4090@liverpool.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 05:37:50 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Markan Mysteries [was: Cephas]
On Fri, 9 Dec 1994, Robert Kraft wrote:
> Various levels of understanding/status among the disciples;
> conflict with other early Christian positions/leaders;
> cryptic expressions and hidden truths in Mark --
> does anyone read Morton Smith anymore (did anyone ever?)?
> It might be a stimulating experience, whether you agree or not.
I assume you're referring to his book several years back entitled
something like _The Secret Gospel of Mark_? The one interpreting a text
of what is supposed to be the Egyptian Mark as showing a homosexual
relationship between Jesus and the neaniskos of the Gethsemane arrest
scene, etc.? Was there more on that topic later?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 08:52:36 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: eph 2:1 b-greek@virginia.edu
> Yes, it's hard to imagine an active reading of being dead, but certainly in
> the rabbinic style of teaching something like this should get our attention.
> In fact,much of our problems in biblical studies sometimes stems from our
> inclination to absorb things that agree, but we tend to dismiss seeming
> contradictions or things that strike us as strange. This truly is one of the
> problems of trying to translate the text into E english. Many times we tend
> to translate things according to our own personnal theolgy. If we search for
> answers regarding these stange things many times the reward is amazing. I
> know that many of you out there have had the experience of reading a certain
> passage many times and then all of a sudden you see something you've never
> seen before and other things start to connect. That is why a forum like this
> is worthwhile.
>
> Anyway, Paul says many strange things such as:
>
> being jointly-crucified with Christ,
> being jointly-buried with Christ,
> being jointly-raised with Christ,
> being jointly-seated with Christ in the heavenlies(among the celestials i.e.
> en tois epouraniois) as well as being blessed with every spiritual blessing
> en tois epouraniois...etc. etc. There is much more as you all know.
>
> So, I think there is more to Eph. 2:1 than you were dead...just as we find
> this kind of thing in other places-such as yet being us sinners on our behalf
> Christ died(Rom.5:8b).
>
I should have mentioned, that the Greek statives in the imperfective
are allowed WITHOUT the active reading, as they are in many other
languages. Languages seem to vary on a continuum with respect to
imperfectives. Some allow NO stative verbs in the imperfective; the
imperfective is thus often called a progressive. Others, like
English, allow stative verbs, OFTEN with an activereading. Still
others, like, I would claim, Greek, allow stative verbs to have a
stative reading in the imperfective. Thus translating Greek stative
imperfectives into English stative/active imperfectives introduces an
element of strangeness NOT present in the original. This, I believe,
is to be avoided. In contrast, the simple past of state verbs (i.e.
'were dead') introduces no active reading and allows the imperfective
interpretation (namely, that the state was persisting at some time in
the past).
On the other hand, statives tend to jump to active interpretations
rather readily in general (across languages). SO there may be
justification for the active 'being dead' interpretation, i.e. active
maintenance of a state of spiritual ignorance. I do not, however,
think that it comes fromthe imperfective alone.
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 09:41:56 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Cephas (Weeden)
Steve,
"I have to go with what the text says" is one of the oldest phoney
exegetical arguments in the world. Don't try it on an old hand. The
text "says" what readers make it out to say. And in the late lst cent.
Chritsian readers are almost certain to know that the 12 are prime
witnesses to the resurrected Jesus (why else does Mark mention the 12 so
deliberately?). So, YOU may read 16:8 as complete silence even toward
the 12 and have them completely left in the dark in Jer., but no lst
century reader would have imagined such a thing. You may take 14:27-28
as having failed, but I suggest that would be reagrded as aberrant in the
lst century. And why, you may ask, do I think Mark may so much
presuppose and reflect "mainstream" early Christian thinking (or what
became thus)? Well, we know what usually happened to "heretical"
literature of the lst few centuries--it got attacked and suppressed
whereever possible. But Mark (if conventional thinking is correct) got
appropriated heavily by Matt & Luke and seems to have set the style for
gospel writing for many. They modified some of Mark's emphases (such as
toning down the critical way the disciples are presented, but not
completely); but largely they appropriated and thus affirmed Mark. And
Mark was made canonical. So, this must mean that scarcely any lst and
2nd cent. readers took Mark the way you prefer, Steve. Does that give
you any pause??
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Taylor" <staylor@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 12:16:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Markan Mysteries [was: Cephas]
Bob Kraft wrote:
>Does anyone read Morton Smith anymore?
>
Or "*should* anyone read Morton Smith anymore"--that is "anyone" trying to
make headway on this already highly speculative issue (re. Cephas thread)
and "Morton Smith" on the Secret Gospel of MK. At least one of M. Smith's
former students seems to have concluded that SGM was a hoax perpetrated
by M. Smith himself--see Jacob Neusner's comments in the most recent
issue of _Bulletin for Biblical Research_ (sorry I can't put may hands on
it so I can't give any vol. or page numbers--be sure to read the
response that follows (defending Smith but not SGM) as well). But M.
Smith is always a good read, regardless!
- --Steve (but not the Steve spinning the current thread)
------------------------------
From: "David A. Salomon" <DAS93006@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 94 13:38:45 EST
Subject: Pauline Mystery
The subject line of a previous post--"Markan Mysteries"--prompted
me to begin a discussion of the Pauline mystery. Paul uses the
term "mystery" or "mysterion" often, and often in different
contexts. Discussion of the term has been long and somewhat
fruitless. It seems to depend on whether one is coming from a
Hellenistic Mystery Religion angle (see, for example, H.A.A. Kennedy)
from a Judaic angle (see Davies' _Paul and Palestinian Judaism),
or from a Christian lexicographic viewpoint (see the article in
_Theological Dictionary of the NT_). As a result, the three different
"theories" produce three different interpretations.
I would be curious to hear what folks make of Paul's use of
this slippery term.
David A. Salomon
das93006@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Department of English
University of Connecticut
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 11:36:48 PST
Subject: Re: Pauline Mystery
I would just like to comment in this thread on supposed
borrowings from Hellenistic mystery religions. I think we should
note the word "Mystery" is the name we give the group. The idea,
so far as I can tell, was that the rites of such groups are
a secret, like what goes on in a Masonic lodge, and it has longed
seemed to me that the likelihood of most outsiders being familiar
enough with the beliefs and practices of these groups to borrow
ideas from them is very tenuous at best. Since we know little
about them, it seems to me very speculative to identify an idea
as coming from them. That's my $0.02.
Ken Litwak
Sybase, Inc.
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: "Micheal C. Flessas" <mflessas@omnifest.uwm.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 14:30:34 -0600
Subject: nt-greek-request@virginia.edu
nt-greek-request@virginia.edu
------------------------------
From: gaichele@adrian.adrian.edu
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 18:03:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Cephas
I certainly agree that texts don't speak for themselves, but I'm
also skeptical that 20th century readers can know what 1st-2nd
century readers "knew." One problem concerns "appropriating" the
text. If Mk was so acceptable, why did it have be appropriated
(ie rewritten) by Mt and Lk? I find this appropriation to be not
nearly as affirmative of Mk as Larry does. The same argument
would apply for Q, which would have been "heretical" from the
proto-"mainstream" point of view -- but of course we have no
"original" to compare those rewritings to. (No, I don't want to
start the Q thread again!)
George Aichele
GAICHELE@adrian.adrian.edu
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 15:46:59 PST
Subject: Re: Cephas
> I certainly agree that texts don't speak for themselves, but I'm
> also skeptical that 20th century readers can know what 1st-2nd
> century readers "knew." One problem concerns "appropriating" the
> text. If Mk was so acceptable, why did it have be appropriated
> (ie rewritten) by Mt and Lk? I find this appropriation to be not
> nearly as affirmative of Mk as Larry does. The same argument
> would apply for Q, which would have been "heretical" from the
> proto-"mainstream" point of view -- but of course we have no
> "original" to compare those rewritings to. (No, I don't want to
> start the Q thread again!)
>
> George Aichele
> GAICHELE@adrian.adrian.edu
>
George, of course if like me one does not believe in Q in the 1st century
or the 25th, and does not believe that Luke sat down with four or more
scrolls balanced on his knees paging back and forth through them to pick
bits and pieces out, then one naturally has a different view. Even if one
accepted that Mt and Lk heavily used Mk that does not mean Mk was
"unacceptable" to them but may mean nothing more than merely that Mk
seemed to provide a good basis from which to start. Anything more than that
reads, IMHO, more into the text than is warranted. I too, do not want
to revisit the Q thread, but one must admit that one's stance on Q
heavily influences what logically can follow.
Ken Litwak
Sybase, Inc.
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 22:31:22 -0500
Subject: Re: John 8:58
Bruce Terry wrote:
>> It would have been normal for Jesus to have said: prin Abraam genesthai,
egw
>> hmhn. hmhn would yield itself to relative past tense more easily than
eimi
>> would. Further, the use of the first person would say that the speaker is
>> still in existence. So *why* the use of the unexpected present tense
here?
>> Is this some kind of dramatic emphasis on the continued existence of
Jesus,
>> or is it a reference to a literal non-LXX translation of Ex. 3:14?
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu (Greg Jordan) responded:
>Perhaps this could be due to the emphasis on _einai_ here as an active
>verb rather than copula, perhaps rendered better with "to exist" in English
>rather than "to be." The emphasis on his continued existence would also
>smooth over the awkwardness of a past tense, which even with the first
>person would seem to imply there was a break in Jesus's existence between
>then and the time of speaking. This would especially be a problem if it
>might suggest Jesus was an ancient figure resurrected from the dead, as
>some rumored him to be. The present tense would underline his continuous
>existence from that time to the present, despite his apparent origin in
>his birth by Mary.
It looks like both of these posts are getting at the significance of
Jesus' use of EGW EIMI in Jn. 8:58. And umm.... Doesn't this bring us back
full circle to the Ex. 3:14ff. passage where God reveals His name (i.e.
nature) as "the one who is"?
David Moore
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 23:28:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: John 8:58
On Fri, 9 Dec 1994 Dvdmoore@aol.com wrote:
> It looks like both of these posts are getting at the significance of
> Jesus' use of EGW EIMI in Jn. 8:58. And umm.... Doesn't this bring us back
> full circle to the Ex. 3:14ff. passage where God reveals His name (i.e.
> nature) as "the one who is"?
Well, does it? It seems to depend on what you think is going on in Ex.
3:14 - Moses has explicitly asked YHWH for his name, and YHWH seems to
reply with a word game that may reveal some philosophic insight into
thinking about God, or which might just be a pun or folk-etymology. I
would not render the LXX or Hebrew as "the one who is" although the
translation would be difficult to do justice to: LXX - "The Being."
It also depends on what you think is going on in John 8:58. In
John 8:58 no one asked the loaded question: who are you?/Who do you say
that you are? The discussion was on whether or not Jesus was greater
than Abraham, and whether or not he had once seen Abraham, truly a
question of his own longevity.
This all brings us back to our John 1:1 problem. Is John's Jesus
declaring himself to be the one and only God, YHWH? I have already
indicated that it would have *not* have been declaring one's self God to
say that one existed before the creation of the world: this was the
messiah tradition within perfectly widespread Judaism at the time
(witness Book of Enoch, rabbinic sources, Qumran texts, etc.). Obviously
Jesus's audience was infuriated by what they heard, but were they hearing
him say he was God? Remember at his trial the officials only accused him
of "making himself the *son* of God" (huion theou heauton epoiEsen 19:7)
and king of the Jews (basileus tOn ioudaiOn 18:33). They already had
their reasons for why they considered it impossible for Jesus to be the
Messiah: that he was from Galilee, etc. (John 7:41, 52). Surely if they
though he had said he was God himself, YHWH in person, they would have
charged him with that, not with being the son of God or king of the Jews,
a more political than religious concern (11:48, 19:12, etc.).
Interestingly, in John the Jewish leaders do not tear their clothes or
claim he is blaspheming, as in Matthew 26:65 etc., although even there,
they seem to think he is *blaspheming* even though he is clearly
distinguishing between himself and God: Matt. 26:64 _...ap arti opsesthe
ton huion tou anthrOpou kathEmenon ek deksiOn tEs dunameOs kai erkhomenon
epi tOn nephelOn tou ouranou_ "in the future you will see the son of man
sitting at the right hand of authority and coming on the clouds of
heaven." Surely Dunamis is to be interpreted as a taboo-substitution for
God's name, and Huios tou AnthrOpou surely emphasizes his humanity. It
is clearly emphasizing only his messiahship, not his divinity, and yet
the reaction is: that he has spoken blasphemy.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: dbs@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 1994 00:46:00 EST
Subject: IMHO
Sorry to ask what must seem basic--but what is "IMHO"?
If you like, reply off list. Thanks in advance.
dbs@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
dbs@cunyvms1.bitnet
D. Anthony Storm
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #508
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu