[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #534
b-greek-digest Thursday, 5 January 1995 Volume 01 : Number 534
In this issue:
"Trumped up"?
"Trumped up"?
A sign...and a seed
[none]
Re: A sign...and a seed
Re: "Trumped up"?
Re: "Trumped up"?
Re: "Trumped up"?
Unsubscribe
Re: A sign...and a seed
Re: Is it Old? My feedback.
Re: Star of Bethlehem (X-
Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
Re: "trumped up"?
Re: Virgin or Young Woman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 00:15:40 -0800
Subject: "Trumped up"?
To Ken Litwak,
OK, you and my mother think Richard Nixon was too harshly judged
by an ungrateful American public who thought his dissembling and
coverup over a minor burglary done by his staff made him "guilty
until proven innocent" of worse transgressions. Let's talk about
Josephus. No one doubts there was a Jewish War, and most
historians accept that Josephus is an important (and often, only)
source of information and, within limits, reliable--except when
he is talking about himself. For some reason, like Nixon,
Josephus gets harshly judged when he says "I was not a crook"
over that olive oil racket that Josephus blames on John of
Gischala, whom Josephus says rudely forced Josephus to sign the
bill of sale documents.
My point is any ancient text must be read critically with
analysis of motives. When Josephus says that, though outwardly
he appeared to be general of an army fighting the Romans, he
actually was trying to _stop_ the revolt all along, few of us
can keep from smiling. The facts speak louder than Josephus's
attempted explanation.
In like manner, the Gospels are dealing with what, after all,
was (at the time) an extremely embarrassing fact: their Lord
(Jesus) whom they so adored was a _criminal_ executed by the
Romans! Imagine this being thrown in the Christians' faces by
their neighbors and employers, family members and friends (and
maybe, more ominously, by highly-placed intellectuals or
advisors in the Roman government). Paul's incidental references
to the "shame of the cross" appears to confirm this was a
socially shameful end.
>From this shame, this embarrassment, this suspicion of being
anti-Roman from worshipping an executed subversive (Jesus of
Judea), the following appears to have been offered, by the
Christians, in response: (a) Jesus was totally innocent of the
charges; and (b) the Jews made the Roman governor crucify
Jesus. He didn't want to. He actually liked Jesus and sought
to free Jesus. But the Jews made him. The Roman soldier who
carried out the crucifixion also recognized that Jesus was the
Son of God. Jesus never was a threat to Rome, no more than
any of the current, post-Nero fire Christians were a threat to
Rome.
I agree with you that the doctrine of Jesus's disciples that
Jesus was wholly innocent might, on some technical or real
sense, be true. But I'm reminded too closely of being accosted
once by followers of the Reverend Sun Yung Moon. When I asked
about allegations that Moon had a history with the Korean CIA,
I was earnestly told by a girl who couldn't have been over 17,
"That is absolutely false!!!" She knew. How did she know?
How do you know (or believe probable) that Jesus was innocent
of violating Roman law in Palestine?
The crime of Jesus, at least so far as the Romans were
concerned (according to the Gospels), was "king of the Jews".
According to the Gospels, Jesus's own disciples thought
Jesus's language referred to a normal, mundane victorious
messiah who would put the Jews back on the map, politically
speaking. Note that this is not a perception from outsiders
but from his _own disciples_. But the Gospels say this
original perception by those who knew him was a
misunderstanding (!).
If all of Malcom X's closest associates who knew him for 3-1/2
years thought all that time that Malcom was a black separatist,
and the crowds who heard him also thought so, and Malcom
himself said so--but now some people tell you Malcom had been
sadly misunderstood by his closest lieutenants (and by
everyone, in fact), and actually meant black separatism only
spiritually, and Malcom actually was an integrationist all
along--what would you think?
Greg Doudna
Marylhurst College
West Linn, Oregon
gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov
- --
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 01:14:46 -0800
Subject: "Trumped up"?
On Jan 3, 1995 I wrote:
>>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.
On Jan 3, 1995 Larry Hurtado responded:
>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.
Let me hasten to clarify in agreement with Larry that my 85%
figure was subjective from me and not a reference to any
known study. Furthermore I truly do not wish to unjustly
characterize.
I actually meant paradigm captivity, not direct commitment to
conclusions in advance. I think most mainstream and
evangelical NT scholars seriously attempt to be objective, or
more precisely, to be honest with the text. Also, though
overt employment and promotion considerations may affect some,
there are at least an equally large number of us who would
not speak or teach the opposite of what we believed no matter
what the reward, or threatened sanction for noncompliance,
was. But as with much of life, there are many things which
are not so black-and-white.
There _is_ a phenomenon which I am trying to name--and
perhaps have not properly articulated. By confessional
commitments I mean on subconscious, paradigmatic, personal
faith, and responsibility-to-community factors. By
employment factors I mean peer pressure more than loyalty
oath signature issues. Who on this list does not know of
unwritten rules in whatever your community is of what goes
beyond the limits of acceptable discourse? My question of
interest is where are those limits in the New Testament
guild (understanding guild itself to be an oversimplification
of what is a pluralistic phenomenon).
I wish there were studies on this subject. I wish some
anthropologist would infiltrate this tribe, study these
natives, and produce a study which would report and quantify
the mores and self-understanding of this tribe. The first
thing our hypothetical anthropologist might do is notice
that NT studies are chiefly done in institutions called
"Divinity Schools." Of course everyone knows that within
Divinity Schools today is every radical fringe mid-life
crisis type, but still they do get socialized--if they go
on to enter the guild. What kind of socialization is this?
I am asking a systems theory question about the sociology
of knowledge. The NT field was a creation of the church, it
is largely funded by the church today, its history of
tradition is from the church, and the job market is largely
the church. The technical expertise of NT scholars is not
in the slightest question. But the larger question of
paradigm and output, of social location shaping
consciousness, this is an issue.
To whom are NT scholars responsible? Their faith community
(who in many cases paid for their educations at sacrifice
and cost)? What kind of effect does this have on their
construction and interpretation of this faith community's
view of its own primal history? Is this different (other
than in degree) from relying on the church history
department of Brigham Young University to define Mormon
history? The technical expertise of academics at BYU I do
not question, nor would I necessarily question genuine
commitment and passion for self-critical history in
individual faculty members (as certainly exists
significantly within the NT field). But periodically if
they cross "the line" they end up bounced out. And I don't
mean to pick on LDS (so please no flames from any of my LDS
friends) but mean this as an analogy: with Mormon origins,
there is an independent, serious academic literature,
available in libraries, with another, secular view of Mormon
history. The dates, names, and events will generally be the
same as in the LDS official/popular version, but the
picture and much of the interpretation is significantly
different. But where is the serious, secular, academic
alternative to constructions of Christian origins produced
from within the NT field?
I don't know the answers. As Larry points out, where are
the studies on these kinds of questions?
Greg Doudna
Marylhurst College
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: Daniel Hedrick <hedrickd@ochampus.mil>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 07:28:06 -0700
Subject: A sign...and a seed
The hebrew word for sign in the Isaiah prophecy
regarding :
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign, behold the
young woman is with child and she will bear a son and shall
call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7.14)
First the word phonetically spelled for sign is "AUT", I do not
have the actual hebrew word but it does connotate that something out of
the NORMAL is going to occur. And having a son born named Immanuel
is certainly not much of a sign...especially if you work at a hospital.
And the word almah, must be a virgin because if a young maiden
was not a virgin then she would be killed "she and her lover". If
she is married then she's probably not be considered as a young maiden.
SO the word almah does fit. Also the septuigent writers of 70
rabbis interpreted the word as parthenos which means virgin. This
does maintain validity when looking at the greek and hebrew of
Solomon's court where he is speaking of his wives, concubines and his
almahs "VIRGINS" of the court.
It is also interesting to note that many of the rabbinic teachers of
the OT spoke that according to Gen 3:15 and Gen 4:25 that the seed
would come elsewhere etc...(NOT FROM ADAM).
The orthodox jews have a lot of children because of there effort to
bear the Messiah.
Anyway, back to the seed. The Targum writers taught that the Messiah
would come THROUGH the Holy spirit. Amazing how learned these rabbinic
teachers were.
The concept of Virgin birth and Holy Spirit fathership is not limited
to the NT. And many rabbinic teachings support this.
I apologize for my lack of references, but I just began attending a Messianic
congregation that holds an apologetics class and these are some of the
examples spoken of last night.
I am sure that there are some of you who could further enlighten some of the
rabbinic sources that promote the incarnation which is revealed in the
greek septuigent.
Daniel
------------------------------
From: benjamin chinnappan <647324@acadvm1.uottawa.ca>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 95 09:32:35 EST
Subject: [none]
unsubscribe b-greek. I am a student of St.Paul's university.
I am doing my New Testament Greek. I would like to learn more
Greek.
Benjamin.
------------------------------
From: David Coomler <davidco@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 07:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: A sign...and a seed
On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Daniel Hedrick wrote:
> And having a son born named Immanuel
> is certainly not much of a sign...especially if you work at a hospital.
I hope this is not getting too far away from the standards of this list,
so I will be brief:
It was a sign that what the king feared would not occur--the growth of
the child was a chronological measure when taken in context.
(Incidentally, Jesus was not named Immanuel).
>
> And the word almah, must be a virgin because if a young maiden
> was not a virgin then she would be killed "she and her lover". If
> she is married then she's probably not be considered as a young maiden.
> SO the word almah does fit. Also the septuagint writers of 70
> rabbis interpreted the word as parthenos which means virgin.
As the standard sources say, 'almah neither precludes nor specifies that
the person is a virgin. That it was used indicates that "virginity" was
not emphasized. Also, as is often stated, one can be a virgin before
conception but not after--so virgins conceive every day, though again the
"virginity" appears unemphasized in Isaiah.
Parthenos appears not to have always meant
virgin, again as one can find from the standard lexicons--it was used
also to mean simply young woman. It is used in Genesis 34:3 of Dinah
after she had been raped, so it is possible that the strict sense of
"virgin" had not yet become set at the time when that was translated
into Greek.
David
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 11:18:04 -0500
Subject: Re: "Trumped up"?
kenneth@sybase.com (Kenneth Litwak) wrote:
> 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.
I'm glad to know that Kenneth backs my position on this, but there is
one matter about his post on which I'd like to comment. I remember that when
the transcriptions of the Nixon tapes were first published, I went to the
building of the newspaper company and bought one of the first copies of the
special edition that contained the transcripts of the tapes. I must say
that, according to what I remember (It's been a long time.), Nixon didn't
really come out squeaky clean. Seems to me I remember something Billy Graham
said in reference to the publication of his friend Nixon's private
conversations. Graham noted that the Bible says that the things anyone has
said in secret will some day come to public light. Sorry if my comment is a
bit off subject, but maybe it shows how sometimes differing attitudes can
affect our hermeneutic { ;-).
David Moore
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 11:52:08 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: "Trumped up"?
The major difference, Greg, between the examples of "in-house" sponsored
or constrained historical work and the critical and challenging kind you
ask for, is that the latter HAS been done and IS done quite a lot, from
the time of F. C. Baur onward, and down through people like Wrede,
Schweitzer, Bultmann, Bousset, Reitzenstein, Pfleiderer, and into our
time the virorous attempt to challenge and overturn views, esp. more
traditional historical constructions continues. (I'm not necessarily
endorsing all the results of the specific people I've named or alluded
to. My point is that I see no evidence of a trammeling or prevention of
quite radical callenging work, much of it being done by people in
seminary positions --Burton Mack a case in point, whose views I don't
always except but who is certainly making an attempt to be naughty and
radical).
So, Greg, what is the basis, I repeat, for thinking that NT
scholarship is somehow unfree, timid, or insufficiently questioning in
approach?
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 10:22:15 PST
Subject: Re: "Trumped up"?
On Wednesday, Jan 4, 1995 (yicks, how time flies), Greg Doudna wrote:
> To Ken Litwak,
snipping
> My point is any ancient text must be read critically with
> analysis of motives. When Josephus says that, though outwardly
> he appeared to be general of an army fighting the Romans, he
> actually was trying to _stop_ the revolt all along, few of us
> can keep from smiling. The facts speak louder than Josephus's
> attempted explanation.
>
> In like manner, the Gospels are dealing with what, after all,
> was (at the time) an extremely embarrassing fact: their Lord
> (Jesus) whom they so adored was a _criminal_ executed by the
> Romans! Imagine this being thrown in the Christians' faces by
> their neighbors and employers, family members and friends (and
> maybe, more ominously, by highly-placed intellectuals or
> advisors in the Roman government). Paul's incidental references
> to the "shame of the cross" appears to confirm this was a
> socially shameful end.
more snipping
> I agree with you that the doctrine of Jesus's disciples that
> Jesus was wholly innocent might, on some technical or real
> sense, be true. But I'm reminded too closely of being accosted
> once by followers of the Reverend Sun Yung Moon. When I asked
> about allegations that Moon had a history with the Korean CIA,
> I was earnestly told by a girl who couldn't have been over 17,
> "That is absolutely false!!!" She knew. How did she know?
> How do you know (or believe probable) that Jesus was innocent
> of violating Roman law in Palestine?
>
> The crime of Jesus, at least so far as the Romans were
> concerned (according to the Gospels), was "king of the Jews".
> According to the Gospels, Jesus's own disciples thought
> Jesus's language referred to a normal, mundane victorious
> messiah who would put the Jews back on the map, politically
> speaking. Note that this is not a perception from outsiders
> but from his _own disciples_. But the Gospels say this
> original perception by those who knew him was a
> misunderstanding (!).
> Greg Doudna
> Marylhurst College
> West Linn, Oregon
> gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov
>
Point taken that motives are of relevance in looking at a text, as long
as you are ready to apply this same critical position to every text, from
the NT to the Wall Street Journal. Also, again, there are two way to
look at a text critically. You can observe that the gospel writers
are concerned about Jesus' innocence. That can lead you to look at what
the gospels say on the subject and to look for external evidence, both
specifically related and more general on the subject of Roman
administrationof law/justice in provinces and in Palestine in particular.
Once you have done that, you can either say that the external evidence
makes the NT picture impossible, giving no weight to the NT picture
because its writers had a motive, or you can say that their motives
focused their choice of topics/material but that there is no empirical
need to reject the gospel material as false, just because of the motives.
Telling my side of the accident I was in on Saturnalia two weeks ago
does have a motive behind it: to get my insurance company to pay for
my chiropractor since I was not at fault. Just because I have a motive
for claiming innocence doesn't mean that my report of being hit from
behind is false, does it? The guy looking at what was left of his
Ford Escort didn't think so. THe point is that motives, while of
significance, cannot be the sole criterion for judging something.
I happen to feel Burton Mack has a particular ax to grind. Can I therefore
skip reading anything else by him because I think his motives are bogus?
I'd like to but it may just be that some things he says are factually
correct, no matter how tendentious I view his writings.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: PExchgeBBS@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 14:14:58 -0500
Subject: Unsubscribe
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
Jonnie Hutchison
pexchgebbs@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 15:57:15 -0500
Subject: Re: A sign...and a seed
davidco@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us (David) wrote:
>It was a sign that what the king feared would not occur--the growth of
>the child was a chronological measure when taken in context.
>(Incidentally, Jesus was not named Immanuel).
There were some posts not too long ago on this list that pointed out,
when we were discussing the name Peter, that proper names are not normally
translated. This is not so, however, in the case of names that are used as
titles (e.g. *AUGOUSTOS=*SEBASTOS). The translation of Immanuel (i.e. God
with us) in Mat. 1:23 indicates it should be seen as a title, not as Jesus'
proper name.
David Moore
------------------------------
From: Dvdmoore@aol.com
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 15:53:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Is it Old? My feedback.
DavidE5034@aol.com (David Evgey) wrote:
>Jesus, despite the fact of being jewish and so did some of his >Disciples,
does not fulfill any criteria to be considered a prophet,
>or a Messiah.
So what do you think Messiah should accomplish when He comes, according
to Scripture, of course (just to keep it on topic)?
David L. Moore
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 02 Jan 95 23:16:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Star of Bethlehem (X-
In a message dated 12-30-94 William H. Jefferys wrote to steve schaper:
WJ> Where have you been? I have seen NO reputable scholar who would date
WJ> Matthew anywhere earlier than about AD 55, and that is JAT Robinson
WJ> (_Redating the New Testament_), which he wrote not because he
WJ> believed that date but because he thought that it would be worthwhile
WJ> making the best case possible for an earlier date than scholarly
WJ> consensus (80 for Matthew) now holds. Read any standard scholarly
WJ> introduction to the New Testament, e.g., Metzger, Perrin & Duling,
WJ> Kees, etc. You are simply misinformed.
WJ> I thought you said you had studied this?
I have, apparently more recent material than you have seen. I will refer here
to Wenham and Linnemann, as well as J.A.T. Robinson as you noted. Of course,
if you are going to define 'reputable' by ideology, talking becomes impossible.
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 02 Jan 95 23:09:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Isaiah 9:6 LXX
In a message dated 12-31-94 Moshe Shulman wrote to Steve Schaper:
MS> You wrote:
> I was somehow under the impression that there was a complete Isaiah
MS> scroll as
>well as various fragments found in the caves in the Qumran vicinity. Am
MS> I
>mistaken?
MS> It was foundand it was almost the exact same as the present Mesoretic
MS> version.
That's what I thought. Thanks!
And if _this_ goes out three times, I will have a serious talk with my
gateway's sysop. Argh!
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 02 Jan 95 23:13:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
In a message dated 12-30-94 "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" wrote to steve schaper:
"(> Not to intrude, but WHOA! Almost all Christians would claim that
"(> they are "Bible-believing." It implies no necessary
"(> Scripture-interpretive strategy, but rather an attitude toward the
"(> interpretive result, which is fairly universal among Christians.
Not the United Methodist Church I grew up in! They would never have said such
a thing!
"(> What is an "orthodox protestant" anyway? The Ecclesiastical branches
"(> would regard it as an oxymoron, and among Protestants it seems merely
"(> divisive.
"(> Greg Jordan jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
What I meant by it was holding to the ecumenical creeds. I prefer this term to
the perjorative 'fundamentalist' which is inaccurate and confusing anyway
since there are the separatists, the evangelicals, the Reformed and Lutherans,
and charismatic groups who hold in essence to these creeds. These are thereby
distinguished from the Deist and Arian groups commonly known as the 'main-
line' denominations. See Machen's _Christianity and Liberalism_. The orthodox
Protestants thus have considerably more in common with the Roman Catholics and
the Eastern Orthodox than they do the 'main-line' variants of their own
traditions.
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 03 Jan 95 12:06:00 +0000
Subject: Re: "trumped up"?
In a message dated 01-02-95 gaichele@adrian.adrian.ed wrote to Steve Schaper:
Actually, David Moore wrote the post that you are attempting to attack.
g> "taking the text seriously in its own right" -- texts have rights? how
g> does one take a text seriously? do you mean as opposed to the way
g> non-evangelicals read?
I suggest that you attempt to master the English language before you tackle
the Greek. If you can't understand a common phrase in your crib tongue, your
comments in b-greek would necessarily be useless.
g> "the biblical text presupposes a supernatural God" -- which text?
g> which God?
The Greek New Testament, which we are theoretically discussing in this list
serve is the Christian addition to the Jewish Canon. That is the text in
question and the God in question is YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
g> "the real appeal of Jesus, from the first century on, is precisely
g> that He did not fit into naturalistic categories" -- appeal to whom?
g> what makes it real?
Suggest you acquaint yourself with the last 2,000 years of world history.
g> "the supernatural dimension of the biblical texts" -- according to
g> whom?
Apparently you have never read them. I suggest you do the perequisite homework
before attempting to contribute, unless you wish to look ignorant.
g> "had He not superceded such categories, it is doubtful he would be
g> more than a blip on the landscape of history" -- why?
There were plenty of other Jewish messianic claimants, rabbis, and sicarii
leaders. They only made a blip.
g> "a historical-critical method that could successfully address the
g> biblical text" -- what counts as "successful address"?
Deal meaningfully with the content of the text, though I'd rather let David
Moore the author of the post you attributed to me, answer this.
g> "an understanding of history as a series of lock-step naturalistic
g> causes and effects that finds its beginning, and direction not in God,
g> but, ultimately, in pure accident cannot finally be reconciled with
g> either the nature or the message of the Bible" -- what nature? which
g> message? whose Bible?
The Bible we are discussing is the Christian canon of the New Testament in the
original Greek, that is, the subject of the listserv you are reading!
g> If you really want dialogue, you're going to have to start by
g> rethinking this language.
If you really want dialogue, you're going to have to start by getting familiar
with this language, and then Greek and the New Testament - you know, the
subject matter of this listserv.
g> George Aichele GAICHELE@adrian.adrian.edu
Steve Schaper
-> Alice4Mac 2.4.4 E QWK Eval:11Sep94
- --- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03R1
- --
|Fidonet: STEVE SCHAPER 1:100/435
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
------------------------------
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 23:38:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Virgin or Young Woman
From: STEVE SCHAPER <STEVE.SCHAPER@1-100-435-0.cheswicks.toadnet.org>
Date: 02 Jan 95 23:13:00 +0000
What I meant by it was holding to the ecumenical creeds. I prefer
this term to the perjorative 'fundamentalist' which is inaccurate
and confusing anyway since there are the separatists, the
evangelicals, the Reformed and Lutherans, and charismatic groups
who hold in essence to these creeds. These are thereby
distinguished from the Deist and Arian groups commonly known as the
'main- line' denominations. See Machen's _Christianity and
Liberalism_. The orthodox Protestants thus have considerably more
in common with the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox than
they do the 'main-line' variants of their own traditions.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't "explain" your terms by accusing vast
number of people of rank dishonesty. The Presbyterian Church (USA),
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church in
the USA, the United Methodist Church--these *all* subscribe to the
ecumenical creeds. And you are accusing them of lying when they make
that subscription.
-mib
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #534
*****************************
** 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