[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #618
b-greek-digest Saturday, 18 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 618
In this issue:
Re: Josephus on prophets
Re: Jo. and J. the B. (long)
textual corruptions
textual corruptions and Christian doctrine
Lexical clustiering and evidence for pseudonymity
Lexical clustering and evidence of pseudonymity
To: b-greek@virginia.edu
Paul and the "Egyptian" (Acts 21:38)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 20:48:03 cst
Subject: Re: Josephus on prophets
On Thu, 16 Mar 1995, Gregory Bloomquist wrote:
> So ANTIQUIUS MELIUS always applies in historiography? Would you
> agree then that Q1 may be a better index of what the historical Jesus
> was like than the canonical Gospels -- assuming Q1, of course?
On which (among other things) see whats-his-name on thoroughgoing
eschatology in the current JBL.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: PaleoBill@aol.com
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 11:19:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Jo. and J. the B. (long)
On Thu. 16 Mar 1995 17:50:50 Greg wrote that:
>"Paleo-Bill's points are not incorrect, just in need of some nuancing.
Josephus' language for JBap >IS, as PaleoBill indicates, hellenised.
>Fine. The question is: so what?
>Josephus can use the term _profetes_ of other contemporaries
>both favourably and unfavourably -- remember, he thinks of
>himself as a _profetes_: does this mean that he wants to call
>down opprobrium on himself?! I don't think so. But this
>double and triple use should indicate that we need to
>do more than look at the use of the term. For the term needs to be
>unpacked."
I quite agree and think we need to nuance this point yet more (gentle poke
in the rib). First, their is no evidence that the Romans were so rapacious as
to execute those who posited reform within their own culture--as long as it
did not infringe upon the Roman regnum. Thus the examples of Hyrcanus and J.
the B. are comparing apples and oranges. In these latter cases neither
individual prophesied against the Roman Empire, and as you already know, Jo.
prophesied that Vespesian would be made Emperor. As Pentecostals call this
these are examples of 'personal' prophecy, not the words of one claiming to
speak for the whole nation and its intentions concerning Rome (although Jo.
included Rome but you know what I mean). In stark contrast, anybody that
might be viewed in light of the term "Kingdom of God" will have to explicate
just what that term means and why Jo. is favorable to any such movement when
his benefactor is none other than the Flavian house itself. View for example
Hengel's _The Zealots_. Seemingly all of the so-called prophets from Judas to
Bar-Kokhba all promised, or intimated a coming 'Kingdom" that would displace
Rome and with obvious military overtones, and signs mirroring Moses-Joshua.
Theudas promised to divide the Jordan. He paid the price by suffering death
from the Romans. The so-called 'Egyptian' promised to bring about the fall of
the walls of Jerusalem. Yet another pretender tried to lead a group into the
wilderness and perished at the hands of the Romans. Menahem seized the city
of Masada together with a large cache of arms. He too tried to set up a
'Kingdom" and again paid the price.
What I am trying to convey is that neither Hyrcanus, nor J. the B. have any
anti-Roman aspect to their prophecies. But to say that a person was
advocating the "Kingdom of God" as a prophet between 6 C.E. and 70 C.E. was
invite raised eyebrows. It is noteworthy that Jo. says that John was a
Baptist who called for repentance towards the God. His speeches aroused the
greatest degree of urgency in his listeners and that the fall of Antipas was
by divine retribution for his death. That description sounds very much like a
number of O.T. prophets, sans only the lack of the appellation 'prophet'. Any
First Century Jew would not have read such a description without hearing the
echo of , and thus imputing too, this figure a prophetic-like role (i.e.
"calling" people to repent and return to YHWH). Thus, I think you have mixed
the apples with the oranges.
A supporting ligament for this view is found in the fact the Jo. tells us
that J. the B., Jesus, and James the brother of Jesus all suffered death by
execution. Since when did the highly Hellenized Antipas take to killing witty
Hellenistic sages who make trenchant social observations? I would think that
he might rather invite such a figure to his court to amuse his guests! And
since when did the Romans begin to execute wise Hellenistic-like figures who
pushed for reform _within_ their own culture? I can think of precious few
examples of such egregious abuse of power by the Romans, yet just
coincidentally our three figures all suffer the same fate! Would you agree
that we have here a telling clue to what lies behind the shadows. Come now
Greg tell me: do you really think our triad were executed because they
emulated Hellenistic figures?
>>Re. Gospel evidence: Paleo-Bill says that
>> the most
>> proximate temporal, and religious, source for the J. the B. ministry is
the
>> Gospel material (and Acts)--not Josephus. The normative canons on proper
>> historiographical methodology dictate that the Gospels should recieve
>> priority.
>So ANTIQUIUS MELIUS always applies in historiography? Would you
>agree then that Q1 may be a better index of what the historical Jesus
>was like than the canonical Gospels -- assuming Q1, of course?
>Shouldn't one also take into consideration bias and possible
>authorial intent? Does this mean that Mark is better than John?
>Lots of questions raised in that final statement.
Again I quite agree with you Greg, except that as you will no doubt note
that I also included in proper appositional placement the term 'religious'
and not just temporal proximity. There exists a wealth of evidence that the
Gospel writers go to some length to define the Baptist and to help shape the
borders of what is evidently a gentle _intra muros_ debate between the early
tradents of the Baptist tradition and the Jesus 'cult'. Remember these
contacts appear to suggest a significant cross-pollination between the two
groups. Surely you are not suggesting that this rich polemical material,
drawn from a well that was dug shortly after the death of both men, a spring
that was quite effusive, is less pure and of less significance than the
distally placed Jo. who was, as far as we know, never in the position to
have had contact with either group.
As for Q1 you already know that the Deuteronomistic model so ably presented
by Jacobson is a more comprehensive model of Q--in all of its layers-- than
the sapiential model. It has the momentum and is growing in advocates almost
daily. Moreover, Sato's thesis also explains as much of the data as does that
proposed by some (I will refrain from the pejorative term 'the Claremont
School' of thought). Both of these two alternatives comports well with the
Gospel tradition (in the main). Thus, while I tentatively accept the Q1 layer
as postulated in Kloppenborg's sedulous work, I think the tide is now turning
and that John himself, a more dispassionate, egalitarian scholar would also
say (and has said as Larry pointed out) that the Q1 layer, in and of itself,
can not be used as a viable metric for how we compare or assess the
'Christianity' of the early tradents of Q. Much more could be said on all of
these matters but I have pontificated enough.
Now since I know that you know all of this I wonder Greg whether you really
believe any of this or are you being the 'good steward of the
kitchen'--stirring the pot by playing Devil's advocate and making a laudatory
attempt to stimulate heuristically useful dialogue? Since every good deed
deserves to be repaid, and since you have been gracious enough to allow Larry
the last word on your last exchange, accordingly, I will let you have the
last word on this matter. I only wonder if you will have a spatula in your
hand when you do respond.
Best Regards
Bill
(P.S. Let us pick up this thread at S.B.L. this year over lunch)
------------------------------
From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 12:31 CST
Subject: textual corruptions
The topic of theologically motivated corruptions of the
Greek text is historically as well as theologically
important. It bears on the nature of textual transmission
and doctrinal development. Some textual critics emphasize
the theologically conservative nature of textual
transmission and corruption. For example, in *Studies
in the Theory and Method of NT Textual Criticism*,
Gordon Fee avers: "One can go anywhere in the NT, and
the profile will be the same. The vast majority of
textual corruptions, though deliberate, are not malicious,
nor are they theologically motivated" (p. 196; cf. p. 195).
Similarly, in *The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture*,
Bart Ehrman states: "... the majority of orthodox Christians,
and presumably orthodox scribes, could live perfectly well
with the text as originally written, interpreting it, that
is, according to orthodox criteria and beliefs. Furthermore,
the very process of transmitting texts was itself a radically
conservative process. These scribes understood that they
were conserving rather than creating tradition.... (p. 58;
cf. pp. 279-80)
This ascription of conservatism, regarding theological
corruption by scribes, is probably true, but not very
easy to establish. One problem is that we lack a
broad evidence base concerning first-century and early-
second-century scribes and scribal tendencies. Another
problem is that the conservatism documentable in later
scribes seems not to be transferable, in the absence
of supporting evidence, to earlier scribal customs.
The key problem is not that we have evidence to regard
the earliest scribes as prone to theologically motivated
textual corruptions; it rather is that our evidence here
is woefully slim. Regarding consistency of theological
modifications, Ehrman claims: "Whether or not there were
orthodox scribes who altered the text with more rigor
is something we will probably never be able to determine.
If there were, the distinctive character of their texts
would have tended to become leveled out as they were recopied
by subsequent scribes who also referred to less radically
modified exemplars" (p. 104, n.68). The latter conditional
may be true, but it cannot underwrite an argument for
the disfavoring of radical theological corruption in
textual transmission; for the earliest scribal transmissions
may not have enjoyed selection from less radically
modified texts. I suspect that the only way to substantiate
conservatism in the earliest textual transmission is to
argue that the earliest scribes were themselves theologically
conservative relative to the apostolic tradition as they
understood it. It is, in any case, regrettable that we
have only sparse evidence regarding the earliest scribal
transmission of the NT MSS.--Paul Moser, Loyola University
of Chicago
------------------------------
From: "CALVIN L. PORTER" <CPORTER@butler.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:18:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: textual corruptions and Christian doctrine
For those who are interested in pursuing the matter of the relationship of
textual criticism and doctrine I recommend an essay by Kenneth Clark
entitled "Textual Criticism and Doctrine." The conclusion of this article
is as follows:
"These fex selections are typical of numerous passages throughout the New
Testament. In every case, doctrinal conceptions are involved and the
reading accepted as original makes a difference in doctrinal sense. Major
conceptions of God, of man, of sacraments, of inspiration and epistemology,
of the supernatural, of resurrection and future life, all are touched in
these few examples of textual variation. The Christian's reach to
apprehend and apply the great doctrines to life is affected by the
Scriptural text he reads. When all such points of textual variation are
considered together it is clear that they comprise a substantial body of
critical issues which only textual criticism can resolve."
"Therefore, it is the great responsibility of textual criticism to refine
the New Testament text toward an ever increasing purity. It must lay the
foundation on which alone doctrinal interpretation of the New Testament may
be soundly based."
The essay appears in Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan (1953).
Calvin Porter
Christian Theological Seminary
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 13:44:43 PST
Subject: Lexical clustiering and evidence for pseudonymity
Greg Doudna asked me if there was any evidence I would consider that
would sway my view of the authorship of the canonical NT books. To that,
not trying to frustrate Greg, I must say yes and no. Yes, if you can
1. First find a known control group, i.e., documents by a given NT writer
that you can be absolutely positive (as much as historically possible)
are by that author, and an equally LARGE amount of equally DIVERSE
material that claims to be by that author but is aboslutely positively
(within historical limits) known to not be by that author, develop
statistical information from that model, identify in each case the
presence or lack of a secretary and determine the significance of that
secreatary and identify how that secretary affected the docuemnt and
modify the statistics in accordance with that and thenapply the resulting
pciture, with the same adjustments, to what you learn by comparing the
control group to the questionable document.
2. Contary to opinions which treat the canonization process as something
done by political fiat, whether of bishops or Constantine or whatever,
it seems clear to me that the early Church relied heavily on traditions
about what documents were apostolic and authentic and worked at identifying
those as opposed to those which were not authentic. The "pious forgery"
theory is not only unprove but flies in the facr of the Church's treatment
of such pious forgeries as the Letter to the Ladodiceans and the Acts of
Paul and Thecla. My point here is that you need to do someting in #1
that is strong enough to completely overrule any significance to early
CHurch tradition.
3. You need to convince me through evidence of the type specifed in #1
that what you end up with is not just statistics showing diversity, but
that they truly, ontologically, show something about authorship. Let me
explain that by analogy. It is all very well and good for scholars to do
form-critical studies, in which a given biblical account is pruned and
stretched until it fits some 19th or 20th cent. conceived "form".
Fine. So the Gospels contain what BUltmann might call miracle stoires.
What of it? It's totally something different, and a huge leap of
logic, in my estimation, to go forward from there and say that because
a pericope is a miracle story, therefore x is true of it, whether x
= didn't happen (Bultmann) or has its orginins in some parallel source
or whatever. I see that as a completely illegitimate non-deduction
based on the imposed form of something. So just because you have
interesting statistics, you have to do something more to show that
they actually mean pseudonymity, as I have suggestd above.
Since I don't think you can do even #1, let alone @2, or @3, no there is
not evidence I'm willing to consider. It's fine to state a hypothesis
about lexical clustering for authorship. The trick is to show that the
results are valid. Also, I still need to be told why the Pastorals
should not be considered to be the authentic Paulien letters against
which all others are measured. The choice is purely arbitrary.
What's more to the pint, why even ask the question? The early Church,
for which I do not claim infallibility, already fought over what was
authentic. 2 Peter was in trouble, but never so far as we can tell,
the Pastorals. Why didn't these lexical features prove troublessome to
them? Could this be an example of straining out gnats and swallowing
camels? Not to be taken wrongly, I'm not saying it's a totally
imappropriate question to ask whether Paul wrote the Pastorals. I do
think the evidence used in the decision is highly subjective, and
highly selective and evinces a high level of skepticism which does
not seem justified to me by this historical minimalist approach.
Isn't it like using Mt. and Lk to decide what Q looked like and then
using this Q to decide how Lk. redacted his sources? There are an awful
lot of assumptions being made there about what you do have from what you
don't have. Here we have some interesting, adn perhaps unexpected
statistical data. More than that, I don't think you can really say for
them or for David Mealand's analysis or for the studies that count
occurences of kai to prove authorhsip, whitout ever having shown
independently that that is a valid approach. Again, this is not
to attack Stephen Carlson or his work or impugne it as unscholarly
or inaccurate. It is only to say that more is being made from data
that is not being controlled rigidly enough than seems warranted to me.
What I'm looking for partly is corroborationto support an hypothesis.
For example, I firmly believe that Roosevelt knew about and made sure of
the attack on Pearl Harbor (though I suspect he expected fewer
casualties -- probably from the old school that didn't believe in ari
power). Those who proposed this view did so with several lines of
corroborating evidence to support their hypothesis, from the firing
of the head of the Navy in the 30s for his predictions of such an attack
if Pearl Harbor's defenses weren't improved, to the Kangaroo court
of Lt. Col Rufus Braaten and its attendant coverup.
What you have are some interesting statistics that are looking for a
hypothetical explanation. When you offer the pseudepigraphic hypothesis,
I would like a little corroborative evidence, like early Church opinion
or practice or analysis of other documents with a firm control group
which has the same results. Or, perhaps clear evidence of what the
early Church was like in the 60's at all points in the Graeco-Roman
world, would be useful, but when scholars throw out Acts, and anything
in the Epistles that would tell them what the Church was like
(why aren't the Pastorals used to create this picture????) as of no
historical value, and then reject the Pastorals' picture of the Church
compared to a scholarly picture that came from I don't know where,
I don't consider that corroborative evidence.
If you can come up with some, then it would seem reasonable perhaps
to extrapolate about authorship from the statistics.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 95 14:19:26 PST
Subject: Lexical clustering and evidence of pseudonymity
> 421 Host ednet1.os1.or.gov not found for mailer ddn.
> 550 <gdoudna@ednet1.os1.or.gov>... Host unknown
Greg, isn't this your email address??
> Greg Doudna asked me if there was any evidence I would consider that
> would sway my view of the authorship of the canonical NT books. To that,
> not trying to frustrate Greg, I must say yes and no. Yes, if you can
> 1. First find a known control group, i.e., documents by a given NT writer
> that you can be absolutely positive (as much as historically possible)
> are by that author, and an equally LARGE amount of equally DIVERSE
> material that claims to be by that author but is aboslutely positively
> (within historical limits) known to not be by that author, develop
> statistical information from that model, identify in each case the
> presence or lack of a secretary and determine the significance of that
> secreatary and identify how that secretary affected the docuemnt and
> modify the statistics in accordance with that and thenapply the resulting
> pciture, with the same adjustments, to what you learn by comparing the
> control group to the questionable document.
> 2. Contary to opinions which treat the canonization process as something
> done by political fiat, whether of bishops or Constantine or whatever,
> it seems clear to me that the early Church relied heavily on traditions
> about what documents were apostolic and authentic and worked at identifying
> those as opposed to those which were not authentic. The "pious forgery"
> theory is not only unprove but flies in the facr of the Church's treatment
> of such pious forgeries as the Letter to the Ladodiceans and the Acts of
> Paul and Thecla. My point here is that you need to do someting in #1
> that is strong enough to completely overrule any significance to early
> CHurch tradition.
> 3. You need to convince me through evidence of the type specifed in #1
> that what you end up with is not just statistics showing diversity, but
> that they truly, ontologically, show something about authorship. Let me
> explain that by analogy. It is all very well and good for scholars to do
> form-critical studies, in which a given biblical account is pruned and
> stretched until it fits some 19th or 20th cent. conceived "form".
> Fine. So the Gospels contain what BUltmann might call miracle stoires.
> What of it? It's totally something different, and a huge leap of
> logic, in my estimation, to go forward from there and say that because
> a pericope is a miracle story, therefore x is true of it, whether x
> = didn't happen (Bultmann) or has its orginins in some parallel source
> or whatever. I see that as a completely illegitimate non-deduction
> based on the imposed form of something. So just because you have
> interesting statistics, you have to do something more to show that
> they actually mean pseudonymity, as I have suggestd above.
> Since I don't think you can do even #1, let alone @2, or @3, no there is
> not evidence I'm willing to consider. It's fine to state a hypothesis
> about lexical clustering for authorship. The trick is to show that the
> results are valid. Also, I still need to be told why the Pastorals
> should not be considered to be the authentic Paulien letters against
> which all others are measured. The choice is purely arbitrary.
> What's more to the pint, why even ask the question? The early Church,
> for which I do not claim infallibility, already fought over what was
> authentic. 2 Peter was in trouble, but never so far as we can tell,
> the Pastorals. Why didn't these lexical features prove troublessome to
> them? Could this be an example of straining out gnats and swallowing
> camels? Not to be taken wrongly, I'm not saying it's a totally
> imappropriate question to ask whether Paul wrote the Pastorals. I do
> think the evidence used in the decision is highly subjective, and
> highly selective and evinces a high level of skepticism which does
> not seem justified to me by this historical minimalist approach.
> Isn't it like using Mt. and Lk to decide what Q looked like and then
> using this Q to decide how Lk. redacted his sources? There are an awful
> lot of assumptions being made there about what you do have from what you
> don't have. Here we have some interesting, adn perhaps unexpected
> statistical data. More than that, I don't think you can really say for
> them or for David Mealand's analysis or for the studies that count
> occurences of kai to prove authorhsip, whitout ever having shown
> independently that that is a valid approach. Again, this is not
> to attack Stephen Carlson or his work or impugne it as unscholarly
> or inaccurate. It is only to say that more is being made from data
> that is not being controlled rigidly enough than seems warranted to me.
>
> What I'm looking for partly is corroborationto support an hypothesis.
> For example, I firmly believe that Roosevelt knew about and made sure of
> the attack on Pearl Harbor (though I suspect he expected fewer
> casualties -- probably from the old school that didn't believe in ari
> power). Those who proposed this view did so with several lines of
> corroborating evidence to support their hypothesis, from the firing
> of the head of the Navy in the 30s for his predictions of such an attack
> if Pearl Harbor's defenses weren't improved, to the Kangaroo court
> of Lt. Col Rufus Braaten and its attendant coverup.
>
> What you have are some interesting statistics that are looking for a
> hypothetical explanation. When you offer the pseudepigraphic hypothesis,
> I would like a little corroborative evidence, like early Church opinion
> or practice or analysis of other documents with a firm control group
> which has the same results. Or, perhaps clear evidence of what the
> early Church was like in the 60's at all points in the Graeco-Roman
> world, would be useful, but when scholars throw out Acts, and anything
> in the Epistles that would tell them what the Church was like
> (why aren't the Pastorals used to create this picture????) as of no
> historical value, and then reject the Pastorals' picture of the Church
> compared to a scholarly picture that came from I don't know where,
> I don't consider that corroborative evidence.
> If you can come up with some, then it would seem reasonable perhaps
> to extrapolate about authorship from the statistics.
>
>
> Ken Litwak
> Emeryville, CA
>
>
------------------------------
From: Religious Center <religion@capaccess.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 20:07:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: To: b-greek@virginia.edu
unsubcribe b-greek
Religious Forum Moderator Home Phone: 301-856-3520
Religion@cap.gwu.edu
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 20:28:27 -0800
Subject: Paul and the "Egyptian" (Acts 21:38)
A puzzling passage and a humble question:
In Acts 21:37-39 Paul surprises a Roman chiliarch by speaking
to him in Greek. The chiliarch, surprised, says, "Then are
you not the Egyptian . . .?" (ouk ara su ei ho Aiguptios...)
Paul confirms he is not the Egyptian.
It is unclear why the chiliarch thought Paul was the Egyptian
who led a Sicarii uprising in the wilderness. What
circumstances would have brought about this misinformation?
But my key question concerns the meaning of "ouk ara su ei ho
Aiguptios" ("are you not the Egyptian..."). Is this an
expression of surprise that Paul is NOT the Egyptian, or that
the chiliarch is asking if Paul IS the Egyptian?
The chiliarch is clearly surprised at hearing Greek. In English
a question beginning "Then are you not...[x]" means one IS
suspected of being [x]. Am I correct to assume that this is
not the case in expressions in Greek of this type?
Can it be assumed from this passage that the Egyptian did not
speak Greek? (Or more accurately, that the Egyptian had a
reputation for inability to speak Greek?) Or can the passage
be read as suggesting the Egyptian DID speak Greek?
A final point (as if the above is not enough) is that it would
seem surprising if someone from Egypt did NOT know Greek, not
the reverse.
Can some gifted soul on this list clarify the Greek and
exegete the passage? Thanks in advance--
Greg Doudna
gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov
- --
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #618
*****************************
** 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