[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #638
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 29 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 638
In this issue:
Re: Noah's Story
Baptism
Re: Baptism
Book of Acts in First Century Setting
Re: Re, "This generation..." etc.
Re: Baptism
Re: Baptism
Missourians
Re: Baptism
Re: Baptism
Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
Fw: it could be worse (fwd)
Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
Re: Baptism
Re: Missourians
Re: Aland's early text
[none]
genre of Revelation
[none]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GLENN WOODEN <glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 08:55:03 ADT
Subject: Re: Noah's Story
Clifford,
You ask:
> My question is then is there any Biblical evidence to support a Noah
> preaching ministry?
If you have not already done so, you should also look into the
"Book of Noah", parts of which are thought to be in 1 Enoch and at
Qumran.
Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada
wooden@acadiau.ca
------------------------------
From: Daniel Hedrick <hedrickd@ochampus.mil>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 06:40:53 -0700
Subject: Baptism
I was recently asked by a new Jewish believer
to baptize him.
I responded positively (later this week we plan on
going to a local pool).
I believe that the utterance of the great commision
in Mark and Matthew reveal that we have the
authority as believers to baptize.
In the light of orthodoxy...Is this an acceptable
interpretation or is there any significant "interpretation"
that suggests that one must be "In authority".
I am under the authority of Christ "obviously", but I
do not hold a position of authority in the local church.
Does the greek provide a clear backgroud?
Pls remember to combine both "Great Commissions".
Daniel
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 08:07:23 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Baptism
This is an interesting question; my impression is that it is more
strictly theological and a matter of interpreting the meaning of the NT
text rather than of understanding the Greek of the NT. I would think that
the key passages would be Mt 16, Mt 18, and Jn 20. It appears to me that
Mt in 16 gives the authority to Peter, in 18 to the whole community of
disciples; Jn 20 gives it to the witnesses to the resurrection. But how
this relates to the authority to baptize differs from one sectarian group
to another according to the understanding of the transmission of
apostolic authority. Frankly I'd be reluctant to read any definitive
authorization from any NT text of one view on this question over another.
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: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 09:22:43 EDT
Subject: Book of Acts in First Century Setting
Friends: FYI
Greg Bloomquist
- ------ Forwarded Message Follows -------
ANNOUNCEMENT
Abstracts for vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in its First Century
Setting: Palestinian Setting are now available on the World Wide Web.
The address is:
http://www.swan.ac.uk/classics/a1cshp.htm
NB as this was loaded from a PC do not use .html
I would like to create a list of reviews of the earlier volumes:
texts or references are welcome.
Please circulate this announcement to other interested parties!
Thank you
David
Dr David W.J. Gill
Department of Classics and Ancient History
University of Wales Swansea
Singleton Park
Swansea SA2 8PP
Wales - UK
Tel. +1792 205678 x 4815
Fax. +1792 295739
http://www.swan.ac.uk/classics/dghp.htm
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 09:18:15 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Re, "This generation..." etc.
Holy cow! (Apologies to our Hindu members!) I didn't realize there were
so many fellow Missouri-folk out there in academia. I'm from the "Big
Mo" also ("The home of Trueman, Twain, and a few wierdos").
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 10:42:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Baptism
On Wed, 29 Mar 1995, Daniel Hedrick wrote:
> Does the greek provide a clear backgroud?
I'm afraid the Greek won't help you. What you need is
an ecclesiology. Is the new believer going to be a
free-lance Christian, or will he be part of a community
of faith? The latter, I hope, in which case there will
be established ways of reading the relevant biblical texts.
Best wishes.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 11:27:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Baptism
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 06:40:53 -0700
From: Daniel Hedrick <hedrickd@ochampus.mil>
Posted-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 06:40:53 -0700
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Content-Length: 642
In the light of orthodoxy...Is this an acceptable
interpretation or is there any significant "interpretation"
that suggests that one must be "In authority".
Does the greek provide a clear backgroud?
In the ancient tradition of the Church, baptism is reserved to the
bishop and those given commission by the bishop, except in cases of
urgent danger of death. This tradition is attested by the universal
church by the fourth century. At the reformation, this was not
challenged, except that the locus of authority shifted from the bishop
to some other ecclesiastic in non-episcopal polities.
The anabaptists occasionally rejected this practice, but by and large
their heirs also only permit a congregational leader to baptize.
If you care only about the text of the NT and not about the nearly
unbroken tradition of the church, then I can't help you.
Michael
------------------------------
From: W.Burton@agora.stm.it
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 18:42:31 GMT
Subject: Missourians
For what it's worth; add me to the list of "show-mes." Born in St. Louis,
MO 1953! From where we started how did we ever wind up here!
Rome's a long way from Grand and Gravois!
Bill burton
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 10:51:47 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Baptism
On Wed, 29 Mar 1995, Michael I Bushnell wrote:
>
> If you care only about the text of the NT and not about the nearly
> unbroken tradition of the church, then I can't help you.
Isn't our problem with the "unbroken tradition of the church" that we
have to qualify it with that adverb "nearly"? But the fact that the
assertion has to be qualified at all has a lot to do with the brokenness
of "the church" itself.
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: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 11:55:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Baptism
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 10:51:47 -0600 (GMT-0600)
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
X-Sender: cwconrad@mango
Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 29 Mar 1995, Michael I Bushnell wrote:
> If you care only about the text of the NT and not about the nearly
> unbroken tradition of the church, then I can't help you.
Isn't our problem with the "unbroken tradition of the church" that we
have to qualify it with that adverb "nearly"? But the fact that the
assertion has to be qualified at all has a lot to do with the brokenness
of "the church" itself.
By "nearly" I meant exactly the approach of a tiny minority which
baptizes in the absence of ecclesiastical authority like the original
poster. There are a small number of churches that do such, but they
are exceedingly rare.
Michael
------------------------------
From: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 10:48:11 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
David Gowler was right: "musings" pretty much describes what I'm
doing on this thread. But, what the heck, it's fun!
He also said (in part):
>> A couple of initial reactions: I would argue that the words of
the characters come through the prism of the narrator's voice (and I
believe that the Lukan narrator is generally "reliable" in literary
terms, pace Dawsey's _The Lukan Voice_). So the "domestication" I
talked about is not a rejection of the "shamelessness" often
practiced by the character Jesus, but is indeed used in a new
configuration of honor/shame and purity systems. And the narrator
doesn't have to do this overtly; it can be done "covertly" (i.e.,
without a direct comment by the narrator) as in the passages you
cited.<<
I would try to discriminate among the narrator's activities here. In
narrative-critical terms, Luke's narrator is extremely close to the
implied author. At the same time, once we credit the narrator for
everything in a story (including the character's words), we may
forfeit the heuristic value of speaking about a narrator. Which is
more helpful: (a) to say that the narrator uses Jesus' speech as
covert commentary, or (b) to say that both Jesus and the narrator are
absolutely reliable voices in Luke-Acts (as is the voice of God and
other supernatural beings, including demons) and that Jesus' speech
provides an evaluative axis? What I'm suggesting is that David is
right about the narrator's activity, but that _in some cases_ (like
those in Luke 5 & 6) another explanatory category may be more
helpful. David's larger point--that Luke uses Jesus' violation of
social codes to inscribe new honor/shame and purity systems would
still hold, but with a more complex explanation in narrative-critical
terms (not in the texts he has written about, but in the gospel as a
whole).
And thanks for the comments on the Zacchaeus story. I had no idea
that it lacked known parallels--that's some pretty good stuff.
Peace,
*******************************
Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University
carey@library.vanderbilt.edu
------------------------------
From: "Dan G. McCartney, Westminster Semin" <dmccartney@shrsys.hslc.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 15:13:18 EST
Subject: Fw: it could be worse (fwd)
Forwarded message:
...
> and you thought we banged our heads against the wall here.....................
>
>
> Here's proof that things could be worse.
>
> This is a bricklayer's accident report that was printed in the
> newsletter of the English equivalent of the Workers' Compensation
> Board. So here, thanks to John Sedgwick, is this Bricklayer's report.
>
> ----------------
>
> Dear Sir;
>
> I am writing in response to your request for additional information in
> Block #3 of the accident reporting form. I put "Poor Planning" as the
> cause of my accident. You asked for a fuller explanation and I trust
> the following details will be sufficient.
>
> I am a bricklayer by trade. On the day of the accident, I was working
> alone on the roof of a new six-story building. When I completed my
> work, I found I had some bricks left over which when weighed later
> were found to weigh 240 lbs. Rather than carry the bricks down by
> hand, I decided to lower them in a barrel by using a pulley which was
> attached to the side of the building at the sixth floor.
>
> Securing the rope at ground level, I went up to the roof, swung the
> barrel out and loaded the bricks into it. Then I went down and untied
> the rope, holding it tightly to insure a slow descent of the 240 lbs
> of bricks. You will note on the accident reporting form that my
> weight is 135 lbs.
>
> Due to my surprise at being jerked off the ground so suddenly, I lost
> my presence of mind and forgot to let go of the rope. Needless to
> say, I proceeded at a rapid rate up the side of the building.
>
> In the vicinity of the third floor, I met the barrel which was now
> proceeding downward at an equally impressive speed. This explains the
> fractured skull, minor abrasions and the broken collarbone, as listed
> in Section 3, accident reporting form.
>
> Slowed only slightly, I continued my rapid ascent, not stopping until
> the fingers of my right hand were two knuckles deep into the pulley
> which I mentioned in Paragraph 2 of this correspondence. Fortunately
> by this time I had regained my presence of mind and was able to hold
> tightly to the rope, in spite of the excruciating pain I was now
> beginning to experience.
>
> At approximately the same time, however, the barrel of bricks hit the
> ground-and the bottom fell out of the barrel. Now devoid of the
> weight of the bricks, the barrel weighed approximately 50 lbs.
>
> I refer you again to my weight. As you might imagine, I began a rapid
> descent down the side of the building. In the vicinity of the third
> floor, I met the barrel coming up. This accounts for the two
> fractured ankles, broken tooth and severe lacerations of my legs and
> lower body.
>
> Here my luck began to change slightly. The encounter with the barrel
> seemed to slow me enough to lessen my injuries when I fell into the
> pile of bricks and fortunately only three vertebrae were cracked.
>
> I am sorry to report, however, as I lay there on the pile of bricks,
> in pain, unable to move and watching the empty barrel six stories
> above me, I again lost my composure and presence of mind and let go of
> the rope.
>
>
> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
> Jay Gale
> (206) 957-3246
> jgale@bvu-lads.loral.com
>
> Some days I wake up grouchy and resentful
> Other days I let them sleep in.
>
>
>
******************************************************************************
** Dan G. McCartney | I'net: DMCCARTNEY@HSLC.ORG **
** Assoc. Prof. of NT | WTS: 215 887 5511 **
** Westminster Theol Seminary | Office: 215 572 3818 **
** Box 27009, Chestnut Hill | Fax: 215 887 5404 **
** Philadelphia, PA 19090 | Home: 215 659 7854 **
******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 15:13:42 EST
Subject: Re: Honor, Shamelessness, and Cynics
Greg Carey wrote:
>>I would try to discriminate among the narrator's
activities here. In narrative-critical terms, Luke's narrator is
extremely close to the implied author [and so forth].<<
I should learn to be not so cryptic in my messages,
because I agree exactly with what Greg had to say. Evidently,
I didn't make my point clear enough. Thanks for the clarification of
what I was trying to say!
Greg wrote:
>>And thanks for the comments on the Zacchaeus story. I had no
idea that it lacked known parallels--that's some pretty good stuff.<<
In humility and with the certainty that some are sure to think
of comparative texts (!), let me repeat that I couldn't think of any
"off the top of my head." There are many acts of inhospitality in
ancient literature -- and many rebukes against them -- so I imagine
that there are some comparative texts to this particular pericope that
I haven't thought of yet. The concluding section of Homer's Odyssey
(with the suitors) is the closest one that has yet come to mind, but,
of course, there are _significant_ differences. Can anyone think of
comparative texts to this type of "shameful" behavior in ancient
texts?
David
********************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 14:18:38 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Baptism
On Wed, 29 Mar 1995, Michael I Bushnell wrote:
> By "nearly" I meant exactly the approach of a tiny minority which
> baptizes in the absence of ecclesiastical authority like the original
> poster. There are a small number of churches that do such, but they
> are exceedingly rare.
OK, I misunderstood. I thought you meant that we know a point where
baptisms were being performed by those authorized in apostolic tradition
but that there's an interval before we have bishops, etc. where we don't
really know who was doing the baptizing and how. We don't really have
very clear indicators about ecclesiastical authorities in the earliest
church in the NT itself; if we did, there wouldn't be so many different
ecclesiastical authority-systems all claiming apostolic validity.
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: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:52:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Missourians
Since the Missouri reunion is already out of control, as I Hoosier, I
will vote for Doug Dillard's banjo--Salem, MO (also on the Andy
Griffith show). He shared on a record how to tell when a feller was from
Arkansas. You look for deep scars on his face from learning to eat with
a knife and fork.
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:03:44 CST
Subject: Re: Aland's early text
On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Tim Staker wrote:
> Aland's catagories are based on his collations of the papyri with p75/B are
>as follows:
>
>FREE: p45, p45, p66, (p9), (p13), p37, p40, p78
>STRICT: p75, p1, p23, p27, p35, p39, p64/67, p65, p70
>NORMAL: p4, p5, (p12), p16, p18, p20, p28, p47, p52, p87
>
>He notes that 3 papyri have some affinities to D: p29, p48, p69.
Tim--
An excellent list. However, it contains some misprints. Here it is
corrected and ordered.
STRICT: p1, p23, p27, p35, p39, p64/67, (p65), p70, p75
NORMAL: p4, p5, (p12), p16, p18, p20, p28, p47, p52, p87
FREE: p45, p46, p66, (p9), (p13), p37, p40, p78
One falls between FREE and related to D: p69.
3 papyri have some affinities to D: p29, p38, p48.
p80 is not classified because of its short length.
Parentheses indicate questionable classifications.
This comes from Aland & Aland, _The Text of the New Testament_, pp. 93, 95.
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 15:05:07 PST
Subject: [none]
When is a genre not a genre, with special ref to Rev.
I hope this is clsely enough related to Greek to be suitable here.
Last night I read an article in _Novum Testamentum_, 1994(4), on the
structure of Revelation (the book, not the doctrine). Before reading the
article, I would have said that the genre of Revelation is apocalyptic.
Ironically, while the author argues for that view, in treating arguments
for it having the genre of prophecy and not apocalyptic, I was convinced
the genre is prophecy. There seem to be many ways in which Revelation
does not fit neatly into the enre apocalyptic as exemplified in
1 Enoch or the Apoc. of Baruch. For one, it is not pseudonymous.
So my question is: how much non-conformity can we reasonably allow a
document and still say it is part of a given genre? The explanations
given in the article seem to me on the order of "no matter how Revelatin
differs, I'm going to rationalize issues away to make it be apocalyptic".
(I hope I never have the author for a prof after tha comment). Thanks.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 19:47:00 CST
Subject: genre of Revelation
In regards to Ken's question about the genre of Revelation:
Just as the best way to classify Genesis is as anti-myth ("Look,
dummies, the sun is not a god, it is a creation of the one God"), the best
way to understand the Revelation is as anti-apocalypse (i.e., the book is
written in apocalyptic style, but as a counter to the pseudepigraphal
speculations abounding amid the 1st century Jewish/Jesish Christian/Gnostic
communities).
------------------------------
From: David Moore <Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 19:05:50 -0800
Subject: [none]
To:B-Greek , copy to perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Perry,
Since, in looking through the messages posted on this subject, I
found that it is I who posted an answer to your b-greek thread to
ioudaios-l, let me post what I have on this subject to for you and all
others who got only part of the discussion.
My apologies to all,
David Moore
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 10:10:13
Subject: Lk. 22.17ff
Hello, all.
I'm doing some work on the textual problem at Lk 22.17ff, and I'd like
to throw
the topic into the ring for discussion.
I agree with the UBS committee that only two readings are worth serious
consideration. In the longer reading, Jesus initiates the Lord's Supper
with
an unfamiliar order, cup-bread-cup. In the shorter reading, he
initiates the
Lord's Supper in another unfamiliar order, cup-bread.
The shorter text is represented by D (5th century, North Africa, known
to
represent Old Latin influences), and various Old Latin readings from the
4th
through the 7th centuries.
The longer text is represented by p75 (300, strict text, category 1),
Aleph
(4th century), and B (4th century), which together constitute the
Alexandrian
text (rated very highly by the Alands et. al.) It is also represented
by
Alexandrinus (A), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), etc. It is overwhelmingly
favored
in the other uncials, miniscules, etc.
The external evidence clearly favors the longer text. But internal
evidence is
problematic. For the modern reader, who knows the other gospel accounts
(but
not the ritual cups of the meal), the longer text is more difficult.
For the
ancient reader, who may or may *not* have known that the proper dinner
included
several ritual cups and probably knew the order of bread-cup in the
other
gospels, the shorter reading may have been more problematic.
1.) Have I presented the case fairly?
2.) How does the similarity with Pauline materials affect the question?
3.) Are there other text-critical issues in Luke that hinge on
familiarity/
nonfamiliarity with Jewish rituals? In fact, are there other
text-critical
issues anywhere in the NT with similar manuscript distribution that
hinge on
familiarity/nonfamiliarity with Jewish rituals?
I figured if anybody out there could answer my questions, they'd be on
this
list. Thanks in advance.
PLStepp
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
perry_stepp@baylor.edu
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 11:21:06 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Lk. 22.17ff
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995 perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote:
> I'm doing some work on the textual problem at Lk 22.17ff, and I'd like
to throw
> the topic into the ring for discussion.
> . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 3.) Are there other text-critical issues in Luke that hinge on
familiarity/
> nonfamiliarity with Jewish rituals? In fact, are there other
text-critical
> issues anywhere in the NT with similar manuscript distribution that
hinge on
> familiarity/nonfamiliarity with Jewish rituals?
>
Further data of possible relevance. Acts 15:29 gives another
instance of textual variation that may well be related to Jewish ritual
laws, where "and things strangled" (kai pnikton) is absent in D and
additional witnesses, several of which at least are "Western". The
absence of "things strangled" probably yields a list of three "moral"
issues: idolatry, murder (taking "haimatos"/blood as metonymy), and
"porneia"/fornication. The presence of "things strangled" suggests
strongly ritual/cultic concerns over idolatry/idol food, eating of
blood,
eating of things strangled/improperly slaughtered, and "porneia" (sexual
improprieties forbidden under Torah, perhaps including marriage within
forbidden degrees of family relation).
It is interesting that as with the "shorter" reading of Luk 22,
so here also the "shorter" reading is supported by D and some allied
Western witnesses.
Further observtion of possible relevance. E. J. Epp has shown
what looks like an "anti-Judaic" bias in several variants in the D text
of Acts. Is there some kind of non/anti-Judaic tendency to all these
readings?
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
From: "Bart D. Ehrman" <BARTUNC@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 16:29 EST
Subject: re: Luke 22:17ff
In keeping with my self-referential mode, begun about
twelve hours ago, may I suggest you read my lengthy discussion
of this variant, either in _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_,
pp. 197-209 or in the SBL Seminar Papers of 1991, pp. 576-91.
The internal problems with the better attested text are indeed
_very_ interesting; I argue in both publications that the
longer text is an orthodox corruption made for anti-docetic
reasons. (Of course, I establish *which* form of the text is
older on *other* grounds, and then work to understand why it
was modified only after having made the case...)
- - -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 01:10:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Lk. 22.17ff
TO: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
>I'm doing some work on the textual problem at Lk 22.17ff,
> and I'd like to throw the topic into the ring for discussion.
I've done some pretty extensive study on this passage, including
examining
photocopies of the papyri and manuscripts involved here.
I opt for the longer reading because of the early attestation for it
and
because there is a high probability of later editing influence from the
Diatesseran and in the Western tradition, once mistakenly identified as
Western non-interpolations.
I do not place a high value "western non-interpolations" believing
that
they are scribal emmendations. Since the discovery of many early papyri
in
this century, the W-H hypothesis that the western non-interpolations
represented the early text does not carry the weight it once did
(although
many text critics were reticent to truncate it). Anyway, with this in
perspective, the weight of internal evidence against external diminishes
to
some degree.
Luke seems to have many conflations of material in his gospel, and I
think
this is one example of that.
Hope this is helpful.
Peace,
Tim Staker
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:02:00 -0800
From: Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com (David Moore)
To: ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu
Subject: Lk 22:17 ff.
Message-ID: <199503230002.QAA11052@ix4.ix.netcom.com>
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org wrote on Wed, 22 Mar 95:
>Hello, all.
>
>I'm doing some work on the textual problem at Lk 22.17ff, and I'd like
to throw
>the topic into the ring for discussion.
>
>I agree with the UBS committee that only two readings are worth serious
>consideration. In the longer reading, Jesus initiates the Lord's
Supper with
>an unfamiliar order, cup-bread-cup. In the shorter reading, he
initiates the
>Lord's Supper in another unfamiliar order, cup-bread.
>
>The shorter text is represented by D (5th century, North Africa, known
to
>represent Old Latin influences), and various Old Latin readings from
the 4th
>through the 7th centuries.
>
>The longer text is represented by p75 (300, strict text, category 1),
Aleph
>(4th century), and B (4th century), which together constitute the
Alexandrian
>text (rated very highly by the Alands et. al.) It is also represented
by
>Alexandrinus (A), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), etc. It is overwhelmingly
favored
>in the other uncials, miniscules, etc.
>
>The external evidence clearly favors the longer text. But internal
evidence is
>problematic. For the modern reader, who knows the other gospel
accounts (but
>not the ritual cups of the meal), the longer text is more difficult.
For the
>ancient reader, who may or may *not* have known that the proper dinner
included
>several ritual cups and probably knew the order of bread-cup in the
other
>gospels, the shorter reading may have been more problematic.
>
>1.) Have I presented the case fairly?
>
>2.) How does the similarity with Pauline materials affect the question?
>
>3.) Are there other text-critical issues in Luke that hinge on
familiarity/
>nonfamiliarity with Jewish rituals? In fact, are there other
text-critical
>issues anywhere in the NT with similar manuscript distribution that
hinge on
>familiarity/nonfamiliarity with Jewish rituals?
>
>I figured if anybody out there could answer my questions, they'd be on
this
>list. Thanks in advance.
Besides the suggestions that Larry Hurtado has already given
(and perhaps also others by now, since I'm on the digest and don't get
posts immediately), you should probably consider the principle that when
D, in the Gospels, attests the shorter reading, it should normally be
given greater weight than when D has the longer reading. This is
becuase D shows a decided tendency to provide elaborations. Westcott
and Hort called these shorter readings in D non-interpolations and gave
them considerable weight. The relative value they ascribed to such
shorter readings in D probably went beyond a sober assesment--at least
that's the consesus now--. But a shorter reading in D is a factor that
is significant enough to consider in text critical matters.
David Moore
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 09:18:19 -0500 (EST)
From: JKRAUS@CENTER.COLGATE.EDU
To: ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu
Subject: Re: Lk 22:17 ff.
Message-ID: <01HOGXGTIC1E9EE5K5@CENTER.COLGATE.EDU>
I argued in my dissertation "Conventions of Literary Symposia in Luke's
Gospel
with Special Attention to the Last Supper" (Vanderbilt, 1991 - available
through
UMI) that the longer text was preferable precisely on the the basis of
Greco-
Roman symposium literary conventions, that a second cup marking a
transition from
the eating to the drinking/talking part of a meal was something Luke
would
have wanted to specify. But my argument is not a Greek vs. Jewish
position.
Rather, I think that Luke viewed the Jewish ritual meal on the 1st night
of
Pesach as a symposium, and thus is an important witness for the view
that the
seder was modelled on symposium conventions (As S. Stein argued a while
ago, pace
B. Bokser in the Origin of the Seder), at least by the end of the 1st
c., before the redaction of M.Pesahim 10
later.
Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus
Colgate University
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 09:45:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: buvisotzky@JTSA.EDU
To: ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu>
Subject: Re: Lk 22:17 ff.
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9503230928.A538992804-0100000@JTSA.EDU>
I'm glad to hear Dr. Blumberg-Kraus add his voice to the adherents of S.
Stein's Seder and Symposium argument. I, too, have long held that the
seder was modelled on the symposium; I've been lecturing on it for years
and some of my best arguments with Baruch Bokser (z'l) were on his
facile
dismissal of Stein. I think Bokser had a point in emphasizing the
Biblical ritual inherent in the seder, it DOES flow from verses of
Scripture, nevertheless, the SHAPE of the seder/haggada, its form, is
symposial.
I am also very taken with the affinities between Atheneus'
Diepnosophostoi and much rabbinic material (particularly content in
Leviticus Rabbah). It is not suprising that these affinities are there,
both Mishnah and Atheneus are products of the Second Sophistic. I point
to this in the first chapter of my new book, FATHERS OF THE WORLD:
ESSAYS
IN RABBINIC AND PATRISTIC LITERATURE, just out from Mohr/Siebeck.
Burt Visotzky
JTSA
On Thu, 23 Mar 1995 JKRAUS@CENTER.COLGATE.EDU wrote:
> I argued in my dissertation "Conventions of Literary Symposia in
Luke's Gospel
> with Special Attention to the Last Supper" (Vanderbilt, 1991 -
available through
> UMI) that the longer text was preferable precisely on the the basis of
Greco-
> Roman symposium literary conventions, that a second cup marking a
transition from
> the eating to the drinking/talking part of a meal was something Luke
would
> have wanted to specify. But my argument is not a Greek vs. Jewish
position.
> Rather, I think that Luke viewed the Jewish ritual meal on the 1st
night of
> Pesach as a symposium, and thus is an important witness for the view
that the
> seder was modelled on symposium conventions (As S. Stein argued a
while ago, pace
> B. Bokser in the Origin of the Seder), at least by the end of the 1st
c., before the redaction of M.Pesahim 10
later.
> Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus
> Colgate University
>
>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 95 10:04:24
From: perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
To: ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu
Subject: Lk. 22.17ff
Message-ID: <9503281004.0E5GA01@chrysalis.org>
Hello, all.
Last week I posted a message on the Internet B-Greek list concerning the
textual question at Lk. 22.17ff. Somehow the message got cross-posted
onto
this list (Ioudaios): M. Parsons informed me yesterday that there had
been some
interesting discussion here.
The problem: until yesterday I was not aware of the existence of the
Ioudaios
list. Thus I, as a brand new subscriber, have never seen the discussion
my
message raised.
Begging your indulgence: can anyone out there in Ioudaios land repost
the
thread? Or, maybe better, let me reiterate my original query and let's
kick it
around for a while.
The issue at Lk. 22.17ff: we have basically two possible readings of the
passage, a longer and a shorter. External evidence strongly favors the
longer.
Internal evidence *seems* to favor the shorter reading: Luke's theology
does
not, by and large, regard Jesus' death as redemptive; there are
stylistic
differences between the possible interpolation and Lukan syntax as a
whole
(most notably the absence of the copula in 20b).
The synoptic relationship between Luke 22 and Mark 14 also seems to
favor the
shorter reading: it is difficult to believe that Lk would take Mark's
bare-
bones narrative ("This is my body. This is my blood.") and
interpretively add
"given for you" without also adding Mark's *lytron* statement.
Prima facie, the longer reading appears more problematic to modern
readers:
this is due to our familiarity with the synoptics and our lack of
familiarity
with the ritual cups of the proper dinner. For the ancient scribes,
which
would be more problematic: the reversed order (cup-bread) or the
possibly
unfamiliar Jewish ritual cups? Most scholars seem to think the order
would be
more problematic, though I think--for reasons outlined below--that the
question
is still very much open.
Add to this B. Ehrman's reconstruction of possible anti-docetic
tendencies in
this passage, and we have a fairly strong internal case for the shorter
reading. But an internal case can also be made for the longer reading,
and it
hinges on the Bezaen scribes' antipathy toward Judaism.
1.) E. Epp and G. Rice have documented v.l. in Bezaen Luke-Acts that
show
hostility toward the Jews.
2.) J. Yoder has (very briefly) documented v.l. in Bezaen Luke that
smooth out
Semiticisms.
3.) Marcion uses the longer text: it is inconceivable that he would keep
the
more Jewish features of the Eucharist, given a choice, is it not?
In view of the above, I suggest that the shorter reading is a revision
of the
longer. The scribes, motivated by hostility toward Judaism or a lack of
familiarity with the ritual cups of the proper dinner removed the second
cup.
Well, this is much longer than I'd intended it to be. So I'll simply
close
here and say, "what do YOU think?"
Perry L. Stepp
Baylor University
perry.stepp@chrysalis.org
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #638
*****************************
** 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