[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #606
b-greek-digest Friday, 10 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 606
In this issue:
re: UBS3 is Poison
Re: participles
Re: UBS3 is Poison
re: UBS3 is Poison
re: UBS3 is Poison
Current threads: sorting out the issues
ERASMUS
miraculous powers hinge
Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
Text Types
re: UBS3 is Poison
Jesus and Cynics
Re: miraculous powers hinge
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 15:50:18 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: re: UBS3 is Poison
On Fri, 10 Mar 1995, James D. Ernest wrote:
> > Us Fundamentalists love to throw around the doctrine of INSPIRATION - - that
>
> > against Erasmus for being Cathoic: both Westcott and Hort have been
> > documented to be Mary-olaters, and with what I've heard about the dogmas of
> > Metzger, Aaland, Black, etc..... I'd wonder whether or not they even have a
> > relationship with Christ .... I guess that's just between them and the Lord.
>
> Precisely so. In which case I would invite you to consider whether your
> careless words on the matter are something you wish to leave on the public
> record, not to mention other records of careless words that may be kept
> elsewhere. ("Let the reader understand.") This is something I have had
> to remind myself of on more than one occasion. I mention it publicly here
> because I think you should also consider what kind of effect your posting
> will have the the reputation of a segment of the Christian church that is
> already constantly maligned, often unjustly, for fostering obscurantism and
> uncharitable public discourse.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> James D. Ernest Department of Theology
> Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Boston College
> Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
>
>
Cudos, Prof. Ernest. I am new to this list and could wish that issues,
not people be address...with documentation.
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 10:22:15 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: participles
This message attempts to address a couple of issues that have been
raised lately, and which I have been unable to comment on (do to
sudden outbursts from my two-month old, who usually reads email from
my lap--today I have two hands). Vincent DeCaen's posting
regarding the participles (below, from the b-greek list) and Porter's
treatment thereof gives what I think is a good example of semantics
vs. pragmatics in action (cf. discussion on greek-grammar regarding
the necessity/possibility of same). THat is, he shows that part of
the common 'meaning' attached to participles in a certain order is, in
fact, 'cancellable' in certain contexts. In my dissertation I
maintain precisely such a distinction between semantic (uncancellable)
and pragmatic (cancellable) meanings--after reading DeCaen's post, I
actually looked back to see if I had written the message at an earlier
time and forgotton that I had done so... I think it is absolutely a
crucial distinction to maintain, since the uncancellable meaning rides
along no matter what, whereas cancellable ties more into speaker's
intentions and the entire context. THus it is only the latter than
can be in dispute (although, practially speaking, what BELONGS in the
formal category is also open to discussion). THat is, no one can talk
of a "daughter", for example, and deny that 'it' is female, whereas one
can speak of a "nurse" or a "secretary" as a male, although it is
generally assumed (perhaps decreasingly so) that both are female. TO
quote Roman Jakobson (a venerable structuralist, often ignored in
Chomskyan-type linguistics):
"...even if this meaning is the most common function of this category, the
investigator nevertheless must not equate the dominant meaning of the
category with its general meaning I. By regarding as an essential
relationship something which within the system of the language merely
has the status of a possible relationship, grammarians end up by
making rules with a great number of exceptions" (emphasis added).
We should therefore have in good grammars/lexicons a clear distinction
between the rule (found in all uses, can be assigned to new uses of a
particular lexical or grammatical form) and the tendencies/exceptions.
THe former I call semantics, the latter pragmatics.
...and now the babe is crying and I must sign off...
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
> re: reading of participles, two comments.
>
> 1) one would expect that such an effect would be a) nongrammatical,
> i.e., pragmatic and b) dependent on perfective aspect (ie., where the
> two events wouldn't be overlapping).
>
> 2) such an effect of ordering does have analogues, especially in
> languages that lack a have+en type "perfect" (e.g., with two Russian
> perfectives).
>
> a) when I came in, she ate the sandwich.
> b) she ate the sandwich when I came in.
> c) she had eaten the sandwich when I came in.
>
> 2B) because in English the default reading of simple verb forms is
> perfective, eating and coming in cannot be overlapping. however, the
> ordering of eating and coming appears to be a strong implicature, ie.,
> can be overridden. in a) the eating takes place after the coming in;
> the reading in b) is not as clear (but since English has c), if eating
> came first we would prefer to use the unambiguous perfect). perhaps
> native speakers of Russian (and other systems without the perfect
> construction) could double check this, but the relative ordering of
> events is more ambiguous in Russian, and the linear order should have a greater
> effect (but since I'm nonnative, don't bank on that).
>
> I would appreciate any bibliography on these ordering problems, if
> someone comes across something.
>
------------------------------
From: Tyler Williams <twilliam@epas.utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:25:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: UBS3 is Poison
On Fri, 10 Mar 1995 johnhall@gulf.net wrote:
> GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD!!!!!
>
> 1. If God promised to preserve His Holy Word, we must have it TODAY
> 2. If God promised to preserve His Holy Word, He didn't just preserve the
> thoughts, but THE ACTUAL WORDS.
> 3. [ok, I admit this next one is my opinion, but...] If God promised to
> preserve His Word, it is easily understandable, that He would have done this
> through His Church, rather than a monk's wastepaper basket.
One question: where does God promise to preserve his word? What text (or
should I say proof-text) do you appeal to for this claim?
I find it surprising that often those who claim to have a high view of
scripture (and I count myself among them) are also the ones that don't
let scripture speak.
The phrase "word of God" is not used in scripture to describe scripture
as such, but it's commonly used in the NT to refer to the gospel message
preached, i.e., the story of Christ's work (cf. Acts 4:31; 6:7; 11:1;
1Thess 2:13; 4:13; Heb 13:7; etc.). Similarly, when Paul (?) wrote in
2Tim 3:16 that "all scripture is God-breathed" he certainly isn't
referring to the NT, but to the OT. Similarly, when it says in 1Pet 1:21
is talking about prophecy, *not* the scriptures.
Turning to the OT, Isa 40:8 ("the word of our Lord stands forever") is
talking about the dynamic prophetic word of the Lord, not the scriptures.
While the discussion so far has concentrated on the NT mss witness (as it
should since this is a greek list) we can't ignore the OT witness. How
can we maintain that every last word is inspired when not only do we have
a number of textual variants but we also have whole different editions of
some books: which is inspired, the LXX Jer or the MT Jer? MT Ps or
11QPs.a? Etc. The fact that the NT writers showed considerable
flexibility when they quoted or alluded to the OT (i.e., sometimes
they follow the LXX, sometimes the MT, and at other times who
knows!) seems to indicate to me that the message of the OT is important,
not every last word.
Finally, if God was so concerned to ensure that every last detail of his
word was preserved he certainly didn't do a very good job. He should have
just dropped it from heaven if that was the case.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the scriptures are not
inspired. I'm not even saying that many of those passages I alluded to
above cannot legitimately be extended to refer to the scriptures. All I'm
saying is that we have to be careful what words *we* put in God's mouth!
A neat and tidy syllogism may sound nice and impress some people, but I
suspect that such neat and tidy solutions are just that--neat and tidy
solutions that are imposed upon the text. I believe that it is a far
better method to define inspiration (and innerancy) *inductively* based
upon all current available data, not deductively based upon what we think
should be the case.
Tyler
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler F. Williams Wycliffe College
Internet: twilliam@epas.utoronto.ca Toronto School of Theology
Voice/Fax: (416) 963-9082 University of Toronto
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 11:28:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: re: UBS3 is Poison
On Fri, 10 Mar 1995, Gary Meadors wrote:
> ... Prof. Ernest ...
No, alas, a humble ABD graduate student. Thanks anyway.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Department of Theology
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: Doug Palmer <palmer@jud.fed.us>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 09:56:03 -0600
Subject: re: UBS3 is Poison
On Mar 10, 7:57, John Baima wrote:
> >both Westcott and Hort have been
> >documented to be Mary-olaters, and with what I've heard about the dogmas of
> >Metzger, Aaland, Black, etc..... I'd wonder whether or not they even have a
> >relationship with Christ .... I guess that's just between them and the
> Lord.....
>
> You really do yourself a disservice when you spout such ignorant things
> about men you've never met or know about.
>-- End of excerpt from John Baima
A great deal of the confusion coming out of the KJV camp these days is
due to a shockingly poor book by G.A. Riplinger (The New Age Bible Versions).
She really has a hard time with resources, and has been shown to have
butchered history and the efforts of those who have studied the Scriptures
ever since 1611. A booklet by James White is available, called "New Age
Bible Versions Refuted" and is probably available in text format from him
(Orthopodeo@aol.com, or james.white@f105.n114.z1.fidonet.org). He also
has a new book out this month from Bethany House called "The King James
Only Controversy." It has received rave reviews from the likes of Packer,
Metzger, among others.
If you would like a chuckle (mixed with sadness at the state of the art in
some circles), the NABV (by Riplinger) is available in hypertext format.
If I receive any requests, I will either find an ftp site with it, or
forward copies to whomever would like one.
DCP
_ United States Courts | Doug Palmer
_| ~- TXTSC |Internet: palmer@texas.net
\, _} 7550 IH10 West, Suite 1100 |CourtNews: palmer@txtsc.uscourts.gov
\( San Antonio, Texas 78229 |Comm: (210) 308-3700 ext 5000
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 10:57:31 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Current threads: sorting out the issues
(I apologize if this is a duplicate;my mainframe account was inaccessible
this morning and I tried to send this through a different route; I don't
think it got through, so now that I have finally accessed my account I'll
try this again.)
Friday, March 10, 1995
To: NTGreek Discussion <b-greek@virginia.edu>
In re: Current threads: sorting out the issues
Wow! What a busy "place" (arena?) B-Greek has been in the
last 24 hours; I'm away for a day and return to
approximately 70K of new messages! I've been trying to sort
things out; I owe responses to a couple people who've raised
specific questions to me, but I'd like to formulate my
responses in a general message for the sake both of my own
(and others'?) sanity and of bandwidth economy (which I
think Ken Litwack is right to emphasize; I, for one, find it
dismaying to see three or four screens of cited previous
correspondence prefacing a specific response to a very
specific issue raised somewhere in that cited
correspondence).
1. Methodology:
I think probably the most valuable thing to come to
light in these threads (apart from the initial question of
possible Cynic affinities of Q1) is the
not-altogether-clearly-focused discussion of methodology in
gospel research and epistemological assumptions underlying
legitimate and fruitful research. As I note below, I think
that Greg Bloomquist has done far better than I could in his
discussion of the "foundational question" to clarify the
rationale which I believe underlies the work of most serious
scholars concerned with Synoptic research. One note or
footnote on epistemology: While I DO think that one ought to
apply the same criteria to interpreting the Jesus traditions
as one applies to other historical/documentary evidence, I,
for one, have no problem in general and per se with the
miracles that tradition reports Jesus as having performed. I
think that the miracles are a solid part of the tradition. I
do, therefore, not agree with those researchers who would
assert one can only take a naturalist, rationalist view of
(to use the Aristotelian phrase) HOIA AN GENOITO.
2. Why no interest in historical Jesus or why the express
wish that the "quest" would die:
I really don't think I have anything to add to what I
already wrote yesterday in response to Phil Graber: I can
understand how others might feel they have no urgent need to
know all that can be learned/recovered/discovered about "all
that Jesus said or did." I can see that there are
epistemological or theological grounds for taking this
stance which don't fall within what I originally, foolishly,
asserted to be "unworthy." I don't know whether this will
satisfy Tim Staker, whose response to my "reflections" was,
I thought, thorough, reasonable, and deadly serious, but
perhaps what follows in this new set of "unfocused
ramblings" (Larry Swain's paraphrase of my reference to my
first unauthorized epistle). But, as I said in response to
Phil Graber, I still find the PASSIONATE rejection of the
"quest for the historical Jesus" disturbing, so much so that
it just seems pathological to me. As I said before, I
seriously doubt that much of great importance that is new is
likely to be added to our trove of credible Jesus lore, and
although I didn't say it before, I also have my doubts of
the value of writing a biography of Jesus; I just don't
think the information that we ordinarily look for in a
biography is the sort of information that the evidence
offers us. I suspect that Bultmann was right (_Jesus and the
Word_), that the evidence for Jesus' message to much better
than for what he did at any particular time and place prior
to his crucifixion. On the other hand, what I DO look for to
come from the ongoing investigation of the Synoptics (yes,
and of "Q") is more credible reconstructions of the lives
and activities of first-generation communities of Christian
faith.
3. Rejection of critical study, examination, analysis,
formulation of hypotheses, testing of hypothesises and
drawing of conclusions, both tentative ones and others that
appear successful enough to serve as foundations for further
hypothesis and testing. On what grounds is this enterprise
rejected?
(a) belief that the canonical gospels are essentially
historical sources that should be accorded acceptance "more
or less" uncritically without further ado. I cannot accept
this stance for myself but I don't have a very serious
quarrel with those who do--because I accept the canonical
gospels as the basis for belief and practice, even if I do
not read and interpret them in the same way as those who
read and interpret them without consideration of the
critical issues--and I know too many fine people who have
lived faithful and fruitful lives by doing so.
(b) belief that the underlying and sustaining motive of
the whole enterprise of synotpic gospel research is "more or
less" a conscious and deliberate or at least
pyramid-building cooperative effort to debunk the gospels
and demonstrate that the Jesus proclaimed in the New
Testament was not what believers know him to be. Having read
the Linnemann book referred to in recent correspondence, I
find this to be her basic thrust: those engaged in synoptic
research since the 18th-century have either deliberately
sought to undermine the Christian gospel or have served as
unwitting instruments of those who have sought deliberately
to undermine the Christian gospel. I cannot accept this
thesis as valid in any significant measure--unless it is
held that ANY endeavor to examine critically, analyze and
draw conclusions regarding the gospels as historical
evidence in the same manner that one examines critically,
analyzes, and draws conclusions regarding any other kind of
documentary evidence bearing upon historical events is, as
such, intended to undermine the Christian gospel. I think
that Greg Bloomquist's response (Thu, 9 Mar 1995 11:41 EDT)
to Ken Litwack's "foundational questions" nicely goes to the
heart of what I would myself want to say in response to a
rejection of type (b).
4. Comparison of historical research into secular ancient
history and historical research into the gospels and what
they record. I respect Ken's sincere and earnest endeavor to
demonstrate the unreasonability of applying to the gospels
criteria that one does not apply to events reported by the
historians of Greece and Rome, but I don't think that he has
applied the comparison to properly comparable material. In
Ken's correspondence with me we have talked about such
matters as the crossing of the Alps by Hannibal with
elephants, the reliability of battle accounts and reported
speeches in Thucydides, and the weight to be placed upon the
bias of Tacitus against the emperor Tiberius. More
comparable, I think, would be the endeavor to ascertain
solid biographical data concerning Jesus on the one hand
and, say, Socrates, Pythagoras, or that most celebrated of
all Cynics, Diogenes.
(a) I think that "we" (the community of scholars more
or less confident of having reached trustworthy conclusions)
are on more solid ground in ascertaining facts about the
historical Socrates than we are about the historical Jesus,
although the most "solid" facts about Socrates are not the
ones that most people would consider the most critical
issues regarding Socrates: we know pretty well when he was
born, when and why he was executed (at least what the formal
charges brought against him were), facts about his family
and customary activities--but there are serious problems to
solve regarding somewhat contradictory portraits drawn of
him by Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes, all of whom
provide important evidence, but evidence that has to be
evaulated carefully.
(b) Pythagoras is a much more difficult case and is
perhaps more comparable to Jesus in that he really did
become an object of cult veneration. Some general facts
regarding his birth, early years in Samos, and ultimate
emigration to southern Italy, his discovery of the
mathematical ratio of the musical octave and of the theorem
that bears his name, are generally accepted. But there are
sayings and principles that appear to be the deposit of
successive generations of his cult adherents in Sicily and
southern Italy that are more comparable to NT documents that
are the "deposit" of Christian communities of the first and
second centuries. My impression is that scholars are
hesitant to make very many hard-and-fast assertions
regarding Pythagoras himself and that they are more inclined
to date the Pythagorean materials relatively in terms of
earlier and later materials. This seems considerably more
comparable to the problem of the historical Jesus. (I shall
add, as an aside, that I have only known one faith-committed
Pythagorean personally.)
(c) Much more difficult is Diogenes, about whom there
are so many wonderful stories that one hopes some of them
are true. The most significant collection of them is in the
work of Diogenes Laertius centuries later. I think that
there are probably very few solidly-attested facts about
Diogenes, although the stories do generally present a
consistent picture of a consistent (and fascinating)
personality. It may be that a better analogy to Diogenes is
the OT prophet Elijah who, though surely a historical
character, is much more a figure of legend than of
demonstrable historical delineation.
5. Historicity of Gospel narratives:
(a) Ken has brought up the matter of the
birth-narratives in Matthew and Luke and the claim that
these are "fictions." Here we are indebted to the fine
discussion by Raymond Brown in _The Birth of the Messiah_. I
think Brown approaches these narratives appropriately,
although I think he sees somewhat more positive historical
basis in their elements than I do. It seems to me that
"fictions" is a rather crass term, one that is used either
by a debunker or by one who believes that another's
treatment of one or both narratives is intended as a
debunking would use. Personally I would say of the birth
narratives what I think some others might also say: that
they don't offer us biographical facts such as any of us may
learn of our own births from documentary evidence and direct
testimony of parents and immediate kinfolk; rather they
offer us, in story form, faith-assertions about who Jesus
was and IS, originally and forever, for the community of
faith in which we live. I think it is easy enough to discern
the lack of historical reliability--at least insofar as both
accounts are concerned--because of inner factual
contradictions (Jesus in Mt is born of parents resident in
Bethlehem, in Lk of parents who have come to Bethlehem from
Nazareth for the census; Lk 1 speaks of a date within the
lifetime of Herod the Great, who died 4 B.C.--as does Mt,
while Lk 2 refers to the census of Quirinius, which would
have to be 6-7 A.D.) But calling these stories "fictions" is
to miss the point and misunderstand their importance to the
community of faith (of which I count myself a member).
(b) Another example: the "call" of the first disciples.
Mark 1:16-18 tells us that Jesus called Simon "Peter" and
Andrew from their boats on the lakeshore in Galilee, while
John 1:35-42 tells us that the two brothers first came to
follow Jesus in Judea, where one or both of them had
previously been adherents of John the Baptist. Is it really
to the point to attempt to harmonize these two accounts to
show that both are somehow true? or to decide which one is
true and which one false? If I had to choose, I would go
with the account in John as more likely historical, although
I think that John tells this story with a definite
theological intention. I think that the account in Mark
probably (I do not say certainly) has litle or no historical
foundation, that the core of the story is clearly the
Jesus-saying, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of
men." I find the form-critical approach to this narrative
hard to fault: the story was invented to flesh-out the
saying in a memorable anecdote that could and would and did
become the foundation of many a sermon on the subject of
what it means to be called by Christ. I even suspect (pure
hypothetical suspicion, utterly beyond verification) that
the story originated in Greek-speaking Christianity when
IXQUS perhaps already had become a confessional acronym. At
any rate, I do not feel that this story loses its
faith-value because I doubt the historicity of the Marcan
account of a lakeside call of Peter and Andrew.
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: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:20:36 -0500
Subject: ERASMUS
<<They put so much pressure on
Erasmus that he had to "come up with" a Greek manuscript that had the missing
verse (that is he had someone write up a fresh mss.)>>
I believe that this is unfair to Erasmus. He made a bet that if someone could
come up with a greek text that said this he would include it in his next
edition. It was found. Really made up from whole cloth. So erasmus relented.
However he realized later that he had been had, and it is not in his third
edition, THE KJV was unfortunately based on his second edition. Why it is
still in the NKJV I have never understood!
Dennis
------------------------------
From: Allenkemp@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:29:45 -0500
Subject: miraculous powers hinge
Dear Gary,
>>Proposal: Does 1 Cor give a window for viewing Js 5 as a special gifted
>>procedure which warrants the "prayer of faith" as certain?
Great question and proposal. While not a prof. exegete in NT, I would say
yes to your proposal. I think "faith" is used in varying contexts in the NT.
One is the saving faith that we have when we put our trust in Christ and
follow Him as Lord and Savior. That is a relational or "functional" faith;
it's ongoing/lived out day to day. There is another kind of faith I think
Paul is refering to here in 1 Cor. 12 that is a "gift of the Spirit." (And
also James in his "prayer of faith by the elders) This is what we
Presbyterian "charismatics" call a "manifestational" gift (as opposed to
"functional" above). This is whne the Holy Spirit comes on someone for a
limited time period and enables him/her to have such a faith that he or she
is able to really pray in faith for something to happen that clearly is
beyond any human capability, e.g. a truly miraculous healing, a miraculous
provision, etc. The list here in 1 Cor. 12 perhaps can be distinguished from
the list in Ro. 12 as "manifestational" whereas Ro. 12 is "functional." This
distinction is primarily to offer a way of understanding the difference of
when 1. the Holy Spirit is doing His everyday work in and through every
believer, using natural talents and desires to e.g. to serve, and thus also
cultivating the fruits of the Spirit; and 2.those particularly memorable
occasions when the Holy Spirit comes in power, you can feel it (totally
subjective), and things happen that you know it's God doing it and not you
(healing someone, a special word to speak in a particular situation that you
could not have known naturally to say.) The distinction does get a little
fuzzy on things like wisdom and knowledge. Or say at the end of 1 Cor 12 when
Paul lists administration and helps with tongues and healing. I'm currently
dong a sermon series on the gifts of the Holy Spirit and I'm using some
material by Pete Wagner at Fuller. I've learned quickly to not be dogmatic in
any classifications here.
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 10:51:39 EST
Subject: Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
Greg Carey wrote, in part:
An interesting note about Cynic behavior and the honor-shame models
which have been so big in NT study recently. The pattern Tim
identifies is one which rejects honor-shame patterns. In that sense,
Cynics were shameless--they would not allow convention to restrict
their behavior. And to some degree the Jesus traditions portray
Jesus in this way.
Let me second what Greg had to say by observing how the narrator of Luke uses honor-shame
patterns, as well as some apparently _shameful_ actions of Jesus in Luke to further his rhetorical
strategy.
For example, in Luke 11:37-54, Jesus, according to the social elite, acts outside of his social role
and then goes on to violate commonly accepted hospitality codes.
The narrator creatively rejects these cultural expectations of hospitality (which include honor and
purity concerns) to illustrate the new "virtue code" of the Lukan Jesus.
The narrator actually uses the apparently shameful actions of Jesus (the berating of the host and
other guests) to enhance Jesus' stature in the eyes of the reader.
Wayne Meeks notes (_Moral World_, pp. 54-55) that the "shameless" actions with which the
Cynics attacked "convention" made it seem like they wanted to "undermine the whole social order"
(cf. Acts 17:6!).
The narrator of Luke often utilizes similar literary techniques, but the ideological pressure is even
higher than in the stories about Diogenes (cf. the honorific titles ascribed to Jesus). And the Lukan
narrator also appeals to the "higher virtues" that are actually even more significant in the cultural
contexts of the greater Mediterranean area. Luke therefore assumes, subverts, and transforms
these cultural expectations in his rhetorical strategy.
For a more full discussion, see my article in _Semeia_ 64, esp. pp. 241-245.
David
------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 13:11:41 -0500
Subject: Text Types
Let me add my two cents worth. I regard the byzantine Text Types as generally
superior. I recognizethat this is a minority opinion. However the text I
would devolp would also be eclectic, but based more on Byzantine that is
currently popular. I do not think Hort is a liar, nor do I think that the
Egyptian text type is garbage. I reject the textus recptus as "inspired" It
is not even a good representation of the Byzantine text type!
Dennis
------------------------------
From: Dennis Burke <dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 95 12:26:20 CST
Subject: re: UBS3 is Poison
John Baima wrote:
> the NABV (by Riplinger) is available in hypertext format.
> If I receive any requests, I will either find an ftp site with it, or
> forward copies to whomever would like one.
I have heard of this book and the "level of scholarship" involved in its
creation. I would _love_ to get ahold of an on-line copy or even
an ASCII version from an ftp site. Please post where it can be
obtained.
Thanks!
Dennis Burke
dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 95 12:37 CST
Subject: Jesus and Cynics
In *Images of Jesus Today* (TPI, 1994), James Charlesworth has
a concise treatment, with extensive references, of alleged
Cynic influence on Jesus (pp. 16-19, 36-7). The following
remarks give the gist: "There is presently, as far as I
know, no evidence of Cynics in Jesus' milieu; and
archaeologists have found no evidence of Cynics in pre-70
Palestine.... Mack's sweeping generalizations are not
supported by careful analysis and exegesis. His reconstruction
of pre-70 Galilee is not harmonious with the evidence that
has been supplied by Meyers and Strange or discussed in
the volumes on Galilee by Freyne and Levine.... Those who
want to recast Jesus in light of the Cynics ... will also
need to demonstrate that the Cynics were a social group in
antiquity and not merely a generic term for social critics.
I am convinced they have failed on all these points."
(footnotes omitted) Charlesworth notes: "I am persuaded
by (David) Aune's arguments that the Cynics were not a
social group in antiquity. See his article on Jesus and
the Cynics in *Hillel and Jesus*, forthcoming." --Paul
Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 18:52:49 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: miraculous powers hinge
On Fri, 10 Mar 1995 Allenkemp@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Gary,
> >>Proposal: Does 1 Cor give a window for viewing Js 5 as a special gifted
> >>procedure which warrants the "prayer of faith" as certain?
>
>
> Great question and proposal. While not a prof. exegete in NT, I would say
> yes to your proposal. I think "faith" is used in varying contexts in the NT.
> One is the saving faith that we have when we put our trust in Christ and
> follow Him as Lord and Savior. That is a relational or "functional" faith;
> it's ongoing/lived out day to day. There is another kind of faith I think
> Paul is refering to here in 1 Cor. 12 that is a "gift of the Spirit." (And
> also James in his "prayer of faith by the elders) This is what we
> Presbyterian "charismatics" call a "manifestational" gift (as opposed to
> "functional" above). This is whne the Holy Spirit comes on someone for a
> limited time period and enables him/her to have such a faith that he or she
> is able to really pray in faith for something to happen that clearly is
> beyond any human capability, e.g. a truly miraculous healing, a miraculous
> provision, etc. The list here in 1 Cor. 12 perhaps can be distinguished from
> the list in Ro. 12 as "manifestational" whereas Ro. 12 is "functional." This
> distinction is primarily to offer a way of understanding the difference of
> when 1. the Holy Spirit is doing His everyday work in and through every
> believer, using natural talents and desires to e.g. to serve, and thus also
> cultivating the fruits of the Spirit; and 2.those particularly memorable
> occasions when the Holy Spirit comes in power, you can feel it (totally
> subjective), and things happen that you know it's God doing it and not you
> (healing someone, a special word to speak in a particular situation that you
> could not have known naturally to say.) The distinction does get a little
> fuzzy on things like wisdom and knowledge. Or say at the end of 1 Cor 12 when
> Paul lists administration and helps with tongues and healing. I'm currently
> dong a sermon series on the gifts of the Holy Spirit and I'm using some
> material by Pete Wagner at Fuller. I've learned quickly to not be dogmatic in
> any classifications here.
>
Thanks, Allen...
1. Can you give me/us some published bibliography on these distinctions?
2. I am reminded how influencial our interpretive presuppositions
(derived from our larger theological analysis) can be on how we view
texts and experience. I do not see Js 5 being exercised in today's
church as it seems to be presented in Js. As a cessationist in certain
areas, I wonder if 1 Cor 12 might help to understand why Js is not in the
praxis I observe. Your reading is in another direction. I would like to
read some in-depth discussions of your current faith distinctions.
3. I am still interested in grammatical critique of the structure of 1
Cor 12:7-11.
Shalom,
Gary
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #606
*****************************
** 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