[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #619
b-greek-digest Saturday, 18 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 619
In this issue:
Re: The 'Egyptian'
Josephus on prophets
HONOR, SHAMELESSNESS
REDACTION CRITICISM/
Re: Josephus on prophets
Re: Josephus on prophets
Re: Josephus on prophets
Re: Josephus on prophets
Text critical list?
Re: Josephus on prophets
textual corruptions
Paul and the "Egyptian" (Acts 21:38)
REDACTION CRITICISM/
Josephus on prophets
textual corruptions
Re: Josephus on prophets
Re: Josephus on prophets
Text critical list?
HONOR, SHAMELESSNESS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: PaleoBill@aol.com
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 11:04:29 -0500
Subject: Re: The 'Egyptian'
Dear Greg: As I under stand the situation (from a historical perspective)
one suggestion works ilke this. The revolt of the Egyptian was just prior to
Paul's arrest--perhaps within a two year time frame. Secondly, he had
gathered some thirty thousand people and promised to take Jerusalem after the
walls came down. He eventually was to escape Roman pursuit. As such any Roman
soldier would have been instructed to keep an eye out for his possible
return. Third, the riotous crowd was to the point of killing Paul.
Interestingly, while the Jews were evidently ready to tentatively accept
a prophet until he failed, if he failed than may God help him! No mercy mave
be shown to the false prophet (Deut. 18). Presupposedly some of comments that
the crowd made concerning Paul were known from a rudimentary knowledge of
some 'buzz' words of the occupied people--something all long term soldiers
learn. Some comments to the effect that Paul had attacked the Temple (21:28)
probably were echoed in the presence of the commander. Thus given the
universal uproar, and the charge of coming against the Temple led the
commander to the conclusion that the crowd was so influriated because the
Egyptian had returned and the locals were about to extract their revenge for
leading a false prophetic movement.
I have not looked at the exegesis of the passage but probably Paul was
replying in Aramaic to his antagonist. With that knowledge in hand the
commander probably assumed that the 'Egyptian' was not conversant with Greek.
However, this reconstruction is only one of many and should be treated with
some caution. Nevertheless it rings true to the local _Umwelt_ and the
exigent circumstances. Hope this has been of some help.
Best Regards
Bill Parkinson
- --
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:05:30 cst
Subject: Josephus on prophets
A few points re. Larry's discussion of Josephus qua prophet:
(1) Josephus' hesitation to use the word _prophetes_ and his
limiting it primarily to the canonical prophets is due to the fact
that he considered that the "succession of the prophets" ended
in the reign of Artaxerxes (Jos. C.Ap 1.41, cf. Feldman, "Prophets
and Prophecy in Josephus," JTS 41 (1990) 386-422). So, there is a
clear reason for not using the term later.
(2) Nevertheless, Feldman notes that the word prophet or prophesy is
actually ADDED by Josephus a "significant" 169 times, where the word
is NOT found in Scripture itself. For example, Scripture refers to
Samuel as a prophet once, in contrast to Josephus who refers to him
as such 45 times! (Feldman, 391) Josephus doesn't just avoid the
word _profetes_; he actually OVERuses it in some cases.
(3) Feldman argues that _prophetes_ used by Josephus of post-
canonical individuals means prophets or prophet-like figures --
primarily himself (!) -- who speak God's utterances in the
present, or who interpret the past, or who foresee the future.
Josephus, for example, used the term _prophetes_ of John Hyrcanus as
one who could foretell the future. According to Larry, he could have
classed JBap as a prophet. Feldman says that he could have and did
class Hyrcanus as one. Why didn't Josephus do so with JBap?
(4) Several prophets are Hellenised by Josephus in order to make
"their portrait ... readily intelligible to his pagan readers"
(Feldman, 421).
So, a suggestion: let's assume with Larry an hypothesis that accords
the historical JBap the status or role of _profetes_; however, let's
also ask then why Josephus, differently from the Gospel writers, has
painted JBap in a highly stylised portrayal of Hellenistic sage,
something that he also did with other "prophets"?
And bringing us full circle: might the answer to that question
suggest why, assuming Larry's hypothesis of the historical Jesus as
prophet, the earliest Gospel tradents (e.g., the earliest line
of thinking in Q1) might have done the same with Jesus?
Greetings!
L. GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Faculty of Theology | Faculte de Theologie
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
Email: GBLOOMQUIST@SPU.STPAUL.UOTTAWA.CA
Voice: 613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
Fax: 613-236-4108
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:25:30 cst
Subject: HONOR, SHAMELESSNESS
One of the things I thought of when reading Malina et.al. on "honor/shame"
is the emphasis on the *public* natures of honor and shame in the 1st
century Mediterranean world. If I read it properly, both honor and shame
had to be publicly acknowledged to be real.
Jesus' emphasis on the secrecy of righteous acts (see Mt. 6 and elsewhere)
is an incredibly radical idea. To say that "the only righteousness God
counts is that which is done for his benefit alone" is a startling
non-sequitur in a society where benevolence and piety were by definition
public and social phenomena.
Just an observation--I hope I haven't taken the conversation too far off
on a tangent.
PLStepp
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
perry_stepp@baylor.edu
- ---
WinQwk 2.0b#0 Unregistered Evaluation Copy
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:25:31 cst
Subject: REDACTION CRITICISM/
M.>I haven't seen the Peabody book, but the idea of trying to find lingui
M.>differences between source and redaction material in Mark isn't anythi
M.> E.J. Pryke in the late 70's wrote a book called something like "Redac
M.>Criticism and Marcan Style." He came up with a preliminary division o
M.>"source" and "redaction" material based on the ideas of Bultmann and
M.>Dibelius, found some differences in vocabulary and grammar, then used
M.>differences to reclassify some Marcan passages based on linguistic gro
M.>
M.>The argument wasn't very convincing. Most of the vocabulary differenc
M.>found involved time words (euthws, for instance). He also cited thing
M.>the use of the genitive absolute as pointing to the hand of the redact
M.>Obviously enough, the initial assumptions of the redaction critics mad
M.>inevitable that time references would be over-represented in "redactio
M.>material and so the whole thing was basically an exercise in circular
M.>reasoning: indications of time point to a redactor, there are more tim
M.>references in the redaction passages, therefore we have linguistic evi
M.>that there really is a difference between the source and redaction mat
M.>Not very impressive.
How does this work compare with R. Fortna's work in John? Fortna attempts
to isolate an Ur-gospel under the text of John by isolating "gaps/aporeia"
in the text and branding them as redactional insertions. (I have grossly
and perhaps pejoratively oversimplified Fortna's methodology, but you get
the idea.)
So, anyway, how do similar works in other gospels (or even John) stack up?
PLStepp
perry_stepp@baylor.edu
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
- ---
WinQwk 2.0b#0 Unregistered Evaluation Copy
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:42:02 cst
Subject: Re: Josephus on prophets
On Thu, 16 Mar 1995, Gregory Bloomquist wrote:
> So, a suggestion: let's assume with Larry an hypothesis that accords
> the historical JBap the status or role of _profetes_; however, let's
> also ask then why Josephus, differently from the Gospel writers, has
> painted JBap in a highly stylised portrayal of Hellenistic sage,
> something that he also did with other "prophets"?
>
> And bringing us full circle: might the answer to that question
> suggest why, assuming Larry's hypothesis of the historical Jesus as
> prophet, the earliest Gospel tradents (e.g., the earliest line
> of thinking in Q1) might have done the same with Jesus?
A most interesting line of reflection! Should it be the case that "the
earliest Gospel tradents" preferred a more "hellenized" or sage-like
Jesus (and, please note, I'm not yet able to see from Kloppenborg et alia
yet quite why this suggestion is taken by some as so forceful or likely),
we should certainly observe Kloppenborg's caution against reading his
proposed literary history of Q as indicating/equalling the tradition
history of the Jesus material. Put positively, Kloppenborg himself warns
us that material that might have been added later to Q might well have
been among the earliest Jesus material around, and might have very good
call for being considered authentic (e.g., eschatological material).
But to return to Greg's question, yes, I think we also have to
consider what factors/forces might have moved Q1 folks to draft their
Jesus the way some propose they did. One possibly relevant matter is
that Kloppenborg also insists that "Q" = LITERARY phenomena, not oral
tradition (contra, e.g., Kelber), and that it = GREEK material, not
Aramaic material. So, on this suggestion, the folks in question might
well have been preparing a picture of Jesus to commend him to tastes that
favored Greek-philosophical values/characteristics/themes, in which case
the proposed sophistic Jesus of Q1 might be a secondary, lateral
adaptation of Jesus & Christianity somewhat comparable in some respects
to Josephus' attempt to portray and commend Judaism to his non-Jewish
readers.
But I must leave this speculative line for others and commitments
of my own summon.
Cheers. Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 16:09:35 cst
Subject: Re: Josephus on prophets
At the risk of appearing overtly critical I think Greg has glossed over
some points. Jo. has an adversion to calling the 'sects' during his 'own day'
by Jewish conventions. He signifies their existence as philosophical
schools--an obvious attempt to resonate with his Greco-Roman (and Flavian)
audience. Moreover, he has a distinct _tendez_ in offering exculpatory
evidence on the behalf of the Pharisees. In addition, he also goes to great
lengths to present the Jewish faith as innocent of the sole breach of the
_Pax Romana_ (in roughly a two hundred year period only the Jews were guilty
of this percieved breech). It comes as litte wonder than that Jo. would paint
J. the B. in a light that has does not mirror the so-called prophets that
arose during this turbulent period (roughly nine to ten from Judas, Theudas,
etc. until the destruction by Titus and Vespesian). Such a moniker would have
elicted an opprobrious view of John in the eyes of his audience. And, as
seems probable, Jo. thought well of J. the B. then it comes as no surprise
that he did not refer to him in the manner of the Gospels. Moreover, 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. Hope this little soapbox lecture has been probative rather than a
pain.
Best Regards
Bill
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 17:42:54 cst
Subject: Re: Josephus on prophets
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.
As I have tried to suggest, the point is: what does
Josephus MEAN when he says _profetes_? Likewise, what does he MEAN
by describing JBap in highly hellenised form?
I think that it will ultimately be more helpful to examine the use of
the terminology that Josephus DOES use for JBap and see how it fits
other figures he may describe, than it will to suppose on the basis
of the Gospel traditions that Josephus MUST describe JBap as a
prophet and then look desperately for something that may not
even be there.
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.
Greetings!
L. GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Faculty of Theology | Faculte de Theologie
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
Email: GBLOOMQUIST@SPU.STPAUL.UOTTAWA.CA
Voice: 613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
Fax: 613-236-4108
------------------------------
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: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 11:38:03 cst
Subject: Text critical list?
Someone recently asked whether there is a discussion group devoted to New
Testament textual criticism. I would like to know as well. Is there such
a list?
Tim Finney
------------------------------
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: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 12:31:00 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: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 20:28:27 cst
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
- --
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:25:31 cst
Subject: REDACTION CRITICISM/
M.>I haven't seen the Peabody book, but the idea of trying to find lingui
M.>differences between source and redaction material in Mark isn't anythi
M.> E.J. Pryke in the late 70's wrote a book called something like "Redac
M.>Criticism and Marcan Style." He came up with a preliminary division o
M.>"source" and "redaction" material based on the ideas of Bultmann and
M.>Dibelius, found some differences in vocabulary and grammar, then used
M.>differences to reclassify some Marcan passages based on linguistic gro
M.>
M.>The argument wasn't very convincing. Most of the vocabulary differenc
M.>found involved time words (euthws, for instance). He also cited thing
M.>the use of the genitive absolute as pointing to the hand of the redact
M.>Obviously enough, the initial assumptions of the redaction critics mad
M.>inevitable that time references would be over-represented in "redactio
M.>material and so the whole thing was basically an exercise in circular
M.>reasoning: indications of time point to a redactor, there are more tim
M.>references in the redaction passages, therefore we have linguistic evi
M.>that there really is a difference between the source and redaction mat
M.>Not very impressive.
How does this work compare with R. Fortna's work in John? Fortna attempts
to isolate an Ur-gospel under the text of John by isolating "gaps/aporeia"
in the text and branding them as redactional insertions. (I have grossly
and perhaps pejoratively oversimplified Fortna's methodology, but you get
the idea.)
So, anyway, how do similar works in other gospels (or even John) stack up?
PLStepp
perry_stepp@baylor.edu
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
- ---
WinQwk 2.0b#0 Unregistered Evaluation Copy
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:05:30 cst
Subject: Josephus on prophets
A few points re. Larry's discussion of Josephus qua prophet:
(1) Josephus' hesitation to use the word _prophetes_ and his
limiting it primarily to the canonical prophets is due to the fact
that he considered that the "succession of the prophets" ended
in the reign of Artaxerxes (Jos. C.Ap 1.41, cf. Feldman, "Prophets
and Prophecy in Josephus," JTS 41 (1990) 386-422). So, there is a
clear reason for not using the term later.
(2) Nevertheless, Feldman notes that the word prophet or prophesy is
actually ADDED by Josephus a "significant" 169 times, where the word
is NOT found in Scripture itself. For example, Scripture refers to
Samuel as a prophet once, in contrast to Josephus who refers to him
as such 45 times! (Feldman, 391) Josephus doesn't just avoid the
word _profetes_; he actually OVERuses it in some cases.
(3) Feldman argues that _prophetes_ used by Josephus of post-
canonical individuals means prophets or prophet-like figures --
primarily himself (!) -- who speak God's utterances in the
present, or who interpret the past, or who foresee the future.
Josephus, for example, used the term _prophetes_ of John Hyrcanus as
one who could foretell the future. According to Larry, he could have
classed JBap as a prophet. Feldman says that he could have and did
class Hyrcanus as one. Why didn't Josephus do so with JBap?
(4) Several prophets are Hellenised by Josephus in order to make
"their portrait ... readily intelligible to his pagan readers"
(Feldman, 421).
So, a suggestion: let's assume with Larry an hypothesis that accords
the historical JBap the status or role of _profetes_; however, let's
also ask then why Josephus, differently from the Gospel writers, has
painted JBap in a highly stylised portrayal of Hellenistic sage,
something that he also did with other "prophets"?
And bringing us full circle: might the answer to that question
suggest why, assuming Larry's hypothesis of the historical Jesus as
prophet, the earliest Gospel tradents (e.g., the earliest line
of thinking in Q1) might have done the same with Jesus?
Greetings!
L. GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Faculty of Theology | Faculte de Theologie
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
Email: GBLOOMQUIST@SPU.STPAUL.UOTTAWA.CA
Voice: 613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
Fax: 613-236-4108
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 12:31:00 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: 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: 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: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 11:38:03 cst
Subject: Text critical list?
Someone recently asked whether there is a discussion group devoted to New
Testament textual criticism. I would like to know as well. Is there such
a list?
Tim Finney
------------------------------
From: cba@cba.onramp.net
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 15:25:30 cst
Subject: HONOR, SHAMELESSNESS
One of the things I thought of when reading Malina et.al. on "honor/shame"
is the emphasis on the *public* natures of honor and shame in the 1st
century Mediterranean world. If I read it properly, both honor and shame
had to be publicly acknowledged to be real.
Jesus' emphasis on the secrecy of righteous acts (see Mt. 6 and elsewhere)
is an incredibly radical idea. To say that "the only righteousness God
counts is that which is done for his benefit alone" is a startling
non-sequitur in a society where benevolence and piety were by definition
public and social phenomena.
Just an observation--I hope I haven't taken the conversation too far off
on a tangent.
PLStepp
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
perry_stepp@baylor.edu
- ---
WinQwk 2.0b#0 Unregistered Evaluation Copy
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #619
*****************************
** 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