[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #533
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 4 January 1995 Volume 01 : Number 533
In this issue:
"Trumped up"?
To: BGREEk <B-GREEK@virginia.edu>
Re: b-greek-digest V1 #532
Re: "Trumped up"?
Re: b-greek-digest V1 #532
To: nt-greek@virginia.edu
Re: "Trumped up"?
Re: "trumped up"?
Re: "trumped up"?
Re: "Trumped up"?
Re: "Trumped up"?
"Trumped Up"?
naturalistic reading of Mt 24:3, Mk 13:4
Re: Trumped up?
Re: Trumped up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 02:36:31 -0800
Subject: "Trumped up"?
To David Moore,
While I might quibble with a connotation here or a word there, I
think your description of presuppositional differences is on the
whole very accurate. I appreciate your sincerity and clarity.
But let me ask you: I'm not looking for meaning in these texts
for today. I am just trying to be a good historian and discover
answers to certain questions (e.g. "what happened--and why?").
Why shouldn't I cross-examine writings in the New Testament like
you would with Josephus or the Dead Sea Scrolls or material from
an archaeological site? Your objections would be more convincing
to me if you were to regard all sacred texts as above cross-
examination. But I suspect you apply similar kinds of
questioning toward the writings of other faiths that you object
to my showing toward the writings of yours. As an historian,
I'm supposed to practice this double standard?
Another way I sometimes think of this: Christian origins is done
by New Testament scholars. Other fields assume the NT field
knows what its talking about and accept its conclusions. But
probably 85% of the NT field is de facto committed in advance to
certain outcomes--I mean primarily confessional commitments and
requirements for continued employment or promotion. (And this
is mainstream, not evangelical where the percentage probably
rises to something approaching 100%.) But this is like having
a corporation's books audited by investors in the corporation.
Am I the only one who sees a systems problem here? I wonder if
better quality analysis of phenomenae in the gospels might come
from anthropologists than from the NT field.
In fact, now that you ask :-), I have one such recommendation.
Marvin Harris has an interesting discussion of pre-70 Judean
messiahs, with specific discussion of John the Baptist and Jesus,
in his popular anthropology book, _Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches_
(1974). In this light, members of this list might also find
interesting an article in the current (Jan 1995) issue of
_Harpers_ about the John Frum (Prum) cargo cult in Vanaatu, in
the South Pacific.
Greg Doudna
Department of Religious Studies and Philosophy
Marylhurst College
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: Leroy Huizenga 1996 <huizenga@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 05:40:57 -36000
Subject: To: BGREEk <B-GREEK@virginia.edu>
subscribe b-greek huizenga@acc.jc.edu
------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 10:09:18 -0500
Subject: Re: b-greek-digest V1 #532
<<Rather, the post-70 A.D. date is most probably extrapolated from the fact
of
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. and that the Olivet
discourse mentions events that took place in 70 A.D. According to
naturalistic presuppositions, real prophetic prediction is not a real
possibility, _ergo_ the Gospels must be post-70.>>
What makes this so odd to me is that reading Matt 24 would lead me to
conclude that Jesus expected to return then. Obviously he did not. Why would
this thread be left in the gospels if they were written before 70 AD?
Dennis
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 09:14:48 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: "Trumped up"?
Uh, Greg Doudna's charge that 85% or more of the conclusions of NT
scholars are dictated by confessional commitments and are thus unreliable
is a rather wide-ranging smear of a whole field of scholarship. It is
also UTTERLY unscientific: Greg produces no examples and certainly has
no statistical basis for his deceptive statistics.
And in this hermeneutically aware age, surely we are past the von
Rankian age of thinking that if someone calls himself a historian or
anthropologist (instead of a NT scholar, for example) he is somehow a
better scholar of early Christianity. Pa-leeze!
There are to be sure people whose writings show that their
conclusions are heavily dictated by prior commitments, consciously and
firmly announced. There are many others of us whose conclusions are
influenced in some ways (that only those with other commitments can help
us identify) by our commitments, the effects of which we are not so aware
of. But does this latter not include ALL scholars in all fields
relevant? Or is it only NT scholars, Greg, who are influenced by their
commitments, and does a graduate degree in social science somehow
innoculate one against tendentious interpretation? Be real.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 09:28:33 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: b-greek-digest V1 #532
On Tue, 3 Jan 1995 DDDJ@aol.com wrote:
> <<Rather, the post-70 A.D. date is most probably extrapolated from the fact
> of
> the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. and that the Olivet
> discourse mentions events that took place in 70 A.D. According to
> naturalistic presuppositions, real prophetic prediction is not a real
> possibility, _ergo_ the Gospels must be post-70.>>
> What makes this so odd to me is that reading Matt 24 would lead me to
> conclude that Jesus expected to return then. Obviously he did not. Why would
> this thread be left in the gospels if they were written before 70 AD?
> Dennis
If you'll compare Mt 24:3b (eipe hEmin, pote tauta estai, kai ti to
sEmeion tEs sEs parousias kai synteleias tou aiwnos?) with Mk 13:4 (eipon
hEmin, pote tauta estai, kai ti to sEmeion hotan mellEi tauta
sunteleisqai panta?), the differences are striking. I assume, of course,
that Mark is the earliest account and that it is, in fact, very close to
the actual destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as events either just
having transpired or as imminent). I understand Mark's TAYTA to refer to
the destruction of the temple and the second part of the disciples'
question to refer to the return of Jesus. The alteration of the wording
in Matthew seems to me to indicate a separation of the two events, i.e.
the destruction of the temple (tauta estai), while Jesus' return and the
consummation of everything (hE sE parousia, hE synteleia tou aiwnos)
constitute a separate temporal sequence. Or, in more traditional terms,
Matthew's version implies the "delay" of the Parousia.
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: JONI@ccit.arizona.edu
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 10:39:35 -0700 (MST)
Subject: To: nt-greek@virginia.edu
subscribe nt-greek David Crawford
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 11:46:59 PST
Subject: Re: "Trumped up"?
> I know that within the New Testament guild the view is
> extremely strong that Jesus was "non-political." The gospels'
> reported Roman charge against Jesus is believed, in keeping
> with the gospels' claim, to be either a mistake or trumped-up.
> But the question has to be asked: of all the executions done
> by the Romans for sedition, undoubtedly there was an occasional
> mistake here and there, but is this _likely_? Most of the
> time, persons executed for sedition anciently were probably
> involved in sedition, as a general statement. I think it is
> sound historical method to follow the principle: he must have
> done something or they wouldn't have charged him. This is
> not good method in courtrooms today but it is good for about
> 92% probability in making historical judgements.
> Maybe the two others with Jesus were also mistakes or trumped
> up, by the same logic? Since the gospels have a motive to
> declare Jesus innocent, does this not in itself cast this
> claim of innocence under some suspicion? Which is being
> more naive--to believe the gospels' claim or to believe the
> Romans perceived accurately at the time? Methodologically
> I suggest contemporary interpretations be privileged over
> later constructions and claims. This is a statement of
> historical method, not faith.
> Greg Doudna
> Marylhurst College
> West Linn, Oregon
>
Greg,
Granting for a moment, at least, that it is purely an historical issue, I would be tempted first to ask if all dealings between the Roman rulers of
Israel in the First Century CE and the Jews, whether Jewish leaders or
the populace at large reflect fair Roman justice, whatever that might be
(not my specialty -- maybe Carl Conrad can say more on this) or the political vicissitudes (spelling?) that made things expedient for the Romans. It
is my understanding that Pilate generally had difficulty with the Jews.
It would not be surprising to me for him to grant the crucifixion of one or
more persons whom the Jewish religious leaders rejected just to appease
the Jewish leaders and not get himself into political hot water by
the Jewish leaders petitioning Rome (which I assume they could do, though
I don't know how much effect it would have, but wasn't Pilate recalled
to Rome for failure at his job?). What I'm trying to say is that politics
makes for strange bedfellows and political expediency and opportunism
seem in many cases to overrule all else (I don't have to look any farther
than my experience with IBM to point out examples). What's another Jew or
two on a cross if it keeps things quiet around Jerusalem ? (PLEASE don't
anyone take that as anti-Semitism from me!! My grandfather was Jewish, my
father was Jewish and rejected Christianity because of treatment he
received as a youth because Jews in Milwaukee were labelled
"Christ-kilers" , which is utterly repugnant to everything I believe as
a professing Christian). So I'd venture to guess that Pilate saw a threat
to his position, regardless of the validity of any given charges. Have
I missed some piece of empirical, historical evidence?
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Big island <swanson@inst.augie.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 14:05:47 -0600
Subject: Re: "trumped up"?
George Aichele asked: Do texts have rights?
An interesting question. If one reads with Stanley Fish, and understands
texts to be constituted in the process of being read by interpretive
communities, perhaps they do, at least in so far as communities dispense
rights within their boundaries. The problem always comes when the issue
is the transferability of rights across community boundaries. What, then,
counts as "serious" reading? What, then, merits pejorative language ("lock-
step naturalistic causes and effects", for an example)? What protocols
apply to such negotiations? Such questions become more interesting in
this "hermeneutically aware" age.
------------------------------
From: Big island <swanson@inst.augie.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 14:07:46 -0600
Subject: Re: "trumped up"?
Sorry for the omission:
The post responding to George's question about the rights of texts
comes from
Richard Swanson
Augustana College, Sioux Falls SD
swanson@inst.augie.edu
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 12:08:32 PST
Subject: Re: "Trumped up"?
Greg Doudna wrote:
>I'm not saying this picture is impossible, only that it is
>suspicious considering the source--the source being Gospel
>authors to whom it is _very_ important to show that they
>were not then, and never had been, anti-Roman. It is like
>all Frenchmen worked for the Resistance--even
I would like to focus on the general assertion I see being made here
because I think it is VERY commonplace in biblical studies and SERIOUSLY
flawed methodologically (nothing personal Greg). I have seen in more than
one place some statement to the effect that "since the gospel writers
cared about x, when they say y about x, why must be false". THis statement
is often made in the total abscence of any other evidence at all outside
the NT. It's similar to arguments made by Thompson or Ahlstrom regarding
the history of Israel: the text is theological, so it can't have any
historical validity. IMHO, the aims of a given text should NOT be the sole
criterion for assessing views stated in it, even though I see this all the
time in NT studies. If we accept this notion, then the sword cuts both
ways and the authors who make this assertion have no validity in what they
say because they are concerned to make a point. It leaves only wholly
disinterested documents as containing reliable information, and for the
life of me, I can't think of anything that I'd consider a disinterested
document. I suppose an IRS tax form might qualify (its only tendency
appears to be obfuscation), but that's about it. So the fact that the
gospel writers are interested in Jesus' innocence tells me nothing
except that the gospel writers are interested in Jesus' innocence. Since
the material that Greg holds suspicious is the very material that tells
him that the gospel writers were interested in Jesus' innocence, it seems
to me that there's a problem there.
Ken Litwak
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 12:54:52 PST
Subject: Re: "Trumped up"?
> To David Moore,
> While I might quibble with a connotation here or a word there, I
> think your description of presuppositional differences is on the
> whole very accurate. I appreciate your sincerity and clarity.
> But let me ask you: I'm not looking for meaning in these texts
> for today. I am just trying to be a good historian and discover
> answers to certain questions (e.g. "what happened--and why?").
> Why shouldn't I cross-examine writings in the New Testament like
> you would with Josephus or the Dead Sea Scrolls or material from
> an archaeological site? Your objections would be more convincing
> to me if you were to regard all sacred texts as above cross-
> examination. But I suspect you apply similar kinds of
> questioning toward the writings of other faiths that you object
> to my showing toward the writings of yours. As an historian,
> I'm supposed to practice this double standard?
(snipping)
> Greg Doudna
> Department of Religious Studies and Philosophy
> Marylhurst College
> West Linn, Oregon
Greg,
I didn't perceive David Moore suggesting a double standard. What I see
is a difference between the two of you (and I'll admit that I side with
David) on the role of scepticism in historical study. You seem to be
looking at the NT and saying "Guilty until proven innocent" while
I look at the text (so that I'm not putting anything into David Moore's
mouth) and say "innocent until proven guilty". You assume, in the total
abscence of evidence regarding Jesus' crucifixion outside the NT that the
NT authors must be lying (they are either telling the truth or lying --
I hate all that nuanced garbage that strives for some other option)
to promote their own interests. I say that if you use that logic,
there are no historical documents that can possibly be useful.
Put in another context, most people in the US were sure Nixon was
hiding terrible, deep-dark secrets in the Whitehouse tapes. Guilty
before being proved innocent or guilty. The tapes were taken and
transcribed. Viola! No great, deep-dark secrets. Yet, the college
textbook I read in Political Science 101 a few years later was still sure
that Nixon was a crook and was hiding something. Since the author was
interested in proving his point, whatever he said must be wrong by your
reasoning when it comes to matters of fact. That's bogus logic IMHO. In
the NT case, we basically don't even have other literature to compare
accounts, and you are still sure that the text should be held suspect?
I'd say it's you that may be using a double-standard, since I doubt
seriously you regard with equal suspicion every account of every event
you read about. Were there football bowl games played this last weekend?
No. Only those with an interest in football reported them. They must
be wrong because they care about football. I'm being a rigorous
historian, questioning my sources because historical scepticism should
be equally applied to all documents in all eras or NOT AT ALL.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 16:53:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: "Trumped Up"?
Since Greg D. has mentioned Marvin Harris, it should be mentioned that
his approach is that of non-Marxist Cultural Materialism, a form of
anthropology I have much admiration for, but one which has often been
criticized for being heavily reductionist. So far, it's theoretical
approach and methodology are more impressive than its results and
proposals. Some of the thorny issues are discussed in Eric B. Ross's
early selections: _Beyond the Myths of Culture: Essays in Cultural
Materialism_ (New York: Academic Press, 1980), esp. the essay by Barbara
J. Price, "The Truth is Not in Accounts but in Account Books: On the
Epistemological Status of History." She considers all of the relevant
issues and develop a rigorous methodology, which she then applies to
Aztec national-origins myth. And yet she seems to stumble awfully by
assuming that if part of a myth is impossible, then all of the myth must
be fabrication, utterly rejecting the possibility that myths can contain
grains of truth or merely skewed historical accounts. What is needed is
for a heavy combined dose of literary theory, materialist anthropology,
and some common sense about history and writing. IMHO.
Greg Jordan
jodan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Vincent Broman <broman@np.nosc.mil>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 14:23:09 PST
Subject: naturalistic reading of Mt 24:3, Mk 13:4
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu wrote:
> If you'll compare Mt 24:3b ... with Mk 13:4 ...
> The alteration of the wording
> in Matthew seems to me to indicate a separation of the two events, i.e.
> the destruction of the temple [and] Jesus' return and the
> consummation of everything.
> ... Matthew's version implies the "delay" of the Parousia.
I don't see that at all, even if I were to grant that Matthew's text
in this section to be based on no sources beyond an editorial/theological
revision of Mark.
The difference in Matthew's wording against Mark here has at least two
other non-theological explanations I can think of. First, Mark gives
the disciples' question in a form that's ambiguous (what does
TAUTA SUNTELEISQAI PANTA refer to?) and which seems like a limp intro
to a panoramic/cosmic prophecy of the end of the aeon. Matthew's
wording of their question is a better lead-in line and is explicit where Mark
is more implicit to the effect that the destruction of the temple must occur
in the end-time and the disciples want to know about _that_.
I also think differing nuances of the word SUNTELEISQAI/SUNTELEIAS
(fulfillment of prophecy or consummation of the age) could have played
a role in the choice of wording.
Going beyond the single verse referred to, it looks to me like Mark's text
has plenty of foreshadowed delay:
v5 BLEPETE MH TIJ UMAJ PLANHSH don't let them make you jump the gun
v7 MH QROEISQE DEI GAR GENESQAI ALL OUPW TO TELOJ that's not the end
v8 ARXAI WDINWN TAUTA just the beginning
v10 EIJ PANTA TA EQNH DEI PRWTON KHRUXQHNAI TO EUAGGELION lots happens first
Where v20 has EI MH KURIOJ EKOLOBWSEN TAJ HMERAJ, I take it to mean
that the tribulation period would be shorter than it might otherwise
be, not that the wait for it would be short. No man knows the day
or the hour....
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the v30 OU MH PARELQH H GENEA AUTH
in Matt and Mark was interpreted in more than one way by early christians.
It certainly is now. Can anyone speak to how often ancient readers took
H GENEA AUTH to mean "this generation cohort" as against "this race of Jews"?
Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Phone: +1 619 553 1641
Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div.
San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Email: broman@nosc.mil
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 22:39:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Trumped up?
gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Greg Doudna) wrote:
>To David Moore,
>While I might quibble with a connotation here or a word there, I
>think your description of presuppositional differences is on the
>whole very accurate. I appreciate your sincerity and clarity.
>But let me ask you: I'm not looking for meaning in these texts
>for today. I am just trying to be a good historian and discover
>answers to certain questions (e.g. "what happened--and why?").
>Why shouldn't I cross-examine writings in the New Testament like
>you would with Josephus or the Dead Sea Scrolls or material from
>an archaeological site? Your objections would be more convincing
>to me if you were to regard all sacred texts as above cross-
>examination. But I suspect you apply similar kinds of
>questioning toward the writings of other faiths that you object
>to my showing toward the writings of yours. As an historian,
>I'm supposed to practice this double standard?
First, let me say that I appreciate your thoughtful response to my
recent post on our different positions regarding presuppositions.
With regard to your question: in prinicple, it should be alright to
"cross-examine" the biblical writings. But, IMO, cross-examination - if you
want to call it that - should not be a monologue by the prosecutor; it should
allow the text to answer for itself. For instance, a categorical statement
that the Gospels must date from post-70 A.D. because the Olivet discourse
reflects an understanding of events of that year, does not take into account
Isreal's long prophetic tradition found in the biblical texts; nor does it
mention the clear implication in the Scriptures that Messiah would naturally
have prophetic knowledge and powers (e.g. Mat. 24:1-3 and parallels). Even
if one holds a naturalistic mindset and does not believe true prophetic
powers are possible, some caveat of this sort should still be present. It is
needed to show that the scholar is not a stranger to the text with which he
is working. And it would, at least, imply that he has taken the text's
claims into account.
Such methodology could probably be applied successfully in dealing with
any religious text, provided it be coherent enough for such treatment.
David L. Moore
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 22:35:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Trumped up?
DDDJ@aol.com (Dennis) quoted and wrote:
>>Rather, the post-70 A.D. date is most probably extrapolated from the fact
of
>>the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. and that the Olivet
>>discourse mentions events that took place in 70 A.D. According to
>>naturalistic presuppositions, real prophetic prediction is not a real
>>possibility, _ergo_ the Gospels must be post-70.
>What makes this so odd to me is that reading Matt 24 would lead me to
>conclude that Jesus expected to return then. Obviously he did not. Why would
>this thread be left in the gospels if they were written before 70 AD?
>Dennis
It certainly could be understood that He meant that. If Matthew had
been written post-70, one would think such a matter would have been
clarified; or, if the events had informed the text as Greg Doudna implies,
the text made to conform to the events.
Another matter to consider, for those who hold a post-70 date for all
the Gospels thinking that events of 70 A.D. influenced the Olivet discourse
accounts, is the wording of Mat. 24:16 and parallels. All the Synoptics
report Jesus as saying that His disciples should flee to the hills, whereas,
according to tradition, they fled to Pella, a lowlying city in the
Transjordan (See Eusebius III:5).
A post-70 date for Luke seems more likely than for Mark or Matthew on
the basis of Lu. 21:20 which could be a midrash, based on events of 70 A.D.,
of Jesus' saying as recorded in the parallel passages in Mat. and Mk. But
then, we would have to say that one verse was midrashic and the next verse
not, if we accept the Pella tradition.
IMO, and as the foregoing gives some indication, dating the gospels
isn't a cut-and-dried proposition. Since it is unlikely that Manuscript
evidence that could be dated prior to 70 A.D. would show up, even if some of
the Gospels were earlier than that date, it seems best not to be dogmatic on
the matter.
David L. Moore
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #533
*****************************
** 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