[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #640
b-greek-digest Thursday, 30 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 640
In this issue:
[none]
Re: genre of Revelation
Fwd: Judas in John's Gospel
Re: textual transmission
Re: Baptism
Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
"Soundness" in the Pastorals
Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
Re: Baptism
Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
Re: genre of Revelation
Re: Baptism
Re: Baptism
Re: Baptism
Re: Baptism
Re: Baptism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:00:03 -0100
Subject: [none]
In article <9503292305.AA05298@arctic.sybgate.sybase.com>,
Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com> wrote:
> 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.
No, but what about argument no. 2? ;-) The most important
argument for the view of Revelation as prophecy is that is is
not pseudonymous. But this change can reasonably be explained
because of the shift in purpose.
> 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.
It is a unsettled question which the Apocalyptic Genre group
under SBL have discussed for more than 15 years. Dr. Hellholm
has argued that you have to include not only form and content
but also function to classify a genre. Dr. Mazzaferri has tried
to that in his dissertation _The Genre of the Book of Revelation
from a Source-Critical Perspective_. Both of them are quite
rigoristic. On the other hand Dr. Richard Bauckham has argued
that Revelation is a mixed genre of 1. prophecy 2. apocalypse
and 3. letter.
A Danish professor in New Testament Exegesis Troels
Engberg-Pedersen has argued that e.g. the B.C. Alexandrinians
classified the genre in details in order to mix the genres to
their specific purposes.
I think that Revelation is a genre of its own, or that it _is_ a
mixed genre to serve John's specific purposes. To me it
therefore seems more important _first_ to try to describe form,
content and function and afterwards discuss the classification
of genre. Unfortunately we are still on our way to settle these
questions. The theory that the Emperor Domitian initiated an
(perhaps global, at least) Asian prosecution has been seriously
questioned and must be rejected. But then we have to figure out
what the function of Revelation so might be. My advice is to
forget about Rome as an significant part of that problem and get
back to the text with a new look.
- --
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 08:51:36 -0100
Subject: Re: genre of Revelation
In article <2F7A0DC1@msgtwy.northern.edu>,
"Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu> wrote:
> 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).
>
Please, could you elaborate somewhat on this view? I think I
have some problems with this view. If you classify Revelation as
a "anti-apocalypse" then you have to make it probable that John
intended it do be that. However, the book as such can not be
said to be anti-mythic, even if there are some use of so-called
mythic material. At least, there are not many proponents
to this view among the Scholars I have studied. So if you could
argue a little bit more upon this idea, I would appreciate that.
- --
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: TimNeum@aol.com
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 03:06:32 -0500
Subject: Fwd: Judas in John's Gospel
Please share any help that you may wish to give. It may be appropriate to
respond to this post without technical linguistic jargon since depth of
knowledge of Greek grammar is an unanswered question.
Regards,
Timothy L. Neumann
- ---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: rw@epix.net (Rev Robert Wolff)
Sender: owner-lthrn-l@bgu.edu
Reply-to: lthrn-l@bgu.edu
To: lthrn-l@bgu.edu
Date: 95-03-27 08:50:40 EST
Can any NT scholar help with a question posed by a Lutheran Bible study
group? The question concerns the characterization of Judas in John's
Gospel. Since John is the only Gospel that seems to offer much background
re Judas, and since John is thought to be anti Gnostic, and since
Irenaeus and others refer to a Gospel of Judas existing in Gnostic circles
could it be that our picture of Judas is based more on an anti Gnostic
bias. If so it seems that he may represent some of our trusted
"churchmen" as much as an arch rival.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Thanks
Bob
Grace Ev. Luth. Ch.
Dunkirk NY(ELCA)
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 03:59:57 -0500
Subject: Re: textual transmission
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
FOR: broman@nosc.mil (Vincent Broman)
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
Thanks Vincent for your comments. I understand you to mean that
individual scribal habits vary to such an extant that individual mss ought to
be evaluated instead of one making broad generalizations-- esp. concerning
text families.
I do have in my possession a copy of Colwell's collection of essays
_Studies in Methodology in TC of the NT_ (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1969),
which includes his essay "Method in Evaluating Scribal habits: A study of
P45, P66, P75".
Colwell is certainly not unopinionated. (He begins this essay: "The dead
hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us").
He is not on the friemdliest of terms when speaking of Aland either.
Regardless, his evalution of these 3 papyri are indeed thorough. Since
p75 is in the Alex family, its evaluation was helpful in understand its role
in that family. However, since the character of the scribes is based on
variants which are _particular_ to P75, Colwell's evaluation lacked the
connections I was looking for.
If I read Colwell correctly, he is saying that there are omissions by
scribes done for the sake of brevity (such as the dropping of pronouns) and
grammar (mostly verbal changes). His evaluation of P75 is a high one. He
suggests that the few singualr variants in P75 show that the scribe's desire
to improve style is curbed by obligation to make an exact copy.
On the other hand, P66 is a very free copiest, often substituting words
and their order. He also had the most homoi/arctonteuleton errors.
Anyway, it would seem that the value of a Text type has less to do with
scribal habits than I first perceived.
Thanks for your input, Vincent.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 04:00:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Baptism
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
cc: cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
From: Timster132@aol.com
Hyppolytus gives us a lot of information about the practice of the
eucharist in the 3rd century church. (It is the Bishop that lays hands on
the bread and cup and begins the Great Thanksgiving.)
He might give some info on baptism.
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 04:00:04 -0500
Subject: Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
For: kenneth@sybase.com
FROM: Timster132@aol.com
I find it strange that you would not include the NT book in the genre of
apocalyptic. It is full of traditional apocalyptic language, images, themes,
style of writing.
While you point out that it is not written pseudonymously, actually, it v
ery well could be, whether its author was ascribing his work to John the
apostle or John of Ephesus. That this work is ascribed to such a well-known
author (in either case) and yet this book was slow in gaining universal usage
and acceptance in the church may point to pseudonymity (although the
apocalyptic nature of the book would be enough to scare off many literalist
Latins and others as well).
I find it fascinating that the NT book of Revelation is the only
complete apocalyptic book in the Bible. Daniel has its passages,
(Trito-)Isaiah, Ezekiel, (Deutero-)Zechariah too. The gospels have their
"little apocalypses". And brother Paul gives some theological insights
reflected from apocalyptic sources (1 Thess 4-5, 2 Thess, etc). But still
Revelation stands alone, if one does not count 2 Esdras in the apocrypha.
BTW, what exactly is the "Prophetic" genre, and can you give some
examples of it?
In Christ,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Lloyd K Pietersen <al69@cityscape.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 15:35:27 +0100
Subject: "Soundness" in the Pastorals
I am interested in the use of U(GIAINW and U(GIHS in the Pastorals. Apart
from the PE, U(GIAINW only occurs in the NT at Lk 5:31; 7:10; 15:27, where
it consistently refers to physical well-being; and in 3 Jn 2 where
U(GIAINEIN forms part of the standard health wish in the opening greetings.
However, in the PE, U(GIAINW is linked exclusively with DIDASKALIA, LOGOS,
or PISTIS. Similarly, in every occurrence in the NT, apart from its one
occurrence in the PE (Titus 2:8), U(GIHS is used in the context of physical
healing. In Titus 2:8 it is linked with LOGOS.
The usual explanation for the metaphorical use of these words in the PE is
either that, in common with popular non-philosophical usage of the day, they
simply mean "healthy" as opposed to "false" or "weak" (e.g. NIDNTT, G.W.
Knight's commentary), or that they effectively mean "rational" in accordance
with the philosophical usage of the words (Excursus on 1 Tim 1:10 in
Dibelius/Conzelmann's commentary).
I am wondering whether the metaphorical usage of the terms in the PE is, in
fact, much more polemical. Given their literal association with physical
healing, is the writer deliberately using these words (which are
comparatively rare in the NT) to emphasise that true well-being comes
through sound teaching, sound speech, being sound in "the faith", etc. to
combat an (over)emphasis on physical healing in his communities? To put it
another way, given that oral legends about Paul were obviously circulating
in the second half of the 1st century through to the 2nd century CE
(receiving written form in the Acts of Paul), are the Pastorals
participating in a battle for the memory of Paul (Paul the Thaumaturge v
Paul the Teacher)?
Any thoughts on this matter would be much appreciated.
With best wishes
Lloyd Pietersen
*****************************
* Graduate Student
* University of Sheffield
* Department of Biblical Studies
* Email: lloyd@cityscape.co.uk
*
*****************************
------------------------------
From: GLENN WOODEN <glenn.wooden@acadiau.ca>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 10:51:20 ADT
Subject: Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
Tim,
You must be careful with the use of such terminology as
"apocalyptic". After twenty some years of hashing over terminology,
scholars are generally agreed that we should use the term
"Apocalypse" to refer to a literary genre and that that genre will
have definable features. See Semeia 14 (John J. Collins's intro)
and Semeia 36 (Adela Yarbro Collins's intro) for the generally
accepted definition. As has already been stated by another, Hellholm
wants to do something different, but he is doing the same general
thing--defining what an apocalypse is. An apocalypse may reflect the
views of an individual or of a group.
The term "apocalypticism" is to be reserved for a movement of some
sort that is driven by the world views portrayed in apocalypses.
Some people do not like this term as it makes a direct link with
apocalypses. A movement may or may not produce an apocalypse. A
movement may be based upon a previously established apocalypse. A
movement might have not connection to an apocalypse.
The term "apocalyptic" is slippery. It is an adjective and so should
have a noun to modify (apocalyptic movement, apocalyptic idea, etc.).
It has been used for some time now as a quasi noun, as you used it in
your post below. But this sloppy use of it (this is not an accusation
against you, it has been a problem for the whole area of study for
many years, as the literature on the subject will show you) has led
to much unclarity. So, for example, 2 Thessalonians is apocalyptic.
Does that mean it is an apocalypse? No. It means that it reflects
influence from apocalypses whether because of dependence upon an
apocalypse or because it comes from a movement that was affected by
an apocalypse. To be clear, it is best to say that it is apocalyptic
literature, or better yet, it is millenarian (sociological term)
literature.
So, just because Revelation is "full of traditional apocalyptic language,
images, themes, style of writing" (your words), that does not make it
an apocalypse. To be an apocalypse it must adhere to the genre of
apocalypse. It may indeed be an apocalyptic writing, but if it is
only that, it will not form part of the discussion of genre.
Well, I have gone on too long and, not doubt, have said several
disputable things, so I will leave my 2 cents at that.
Glenn Wooden
> While you point out that it is not written pseudonymously, actually, it v
> ery well could be, whether its author was ascribing his work to John the
> apostle or John of Ephesus. That this work is ascribed to such a well-known
> author (in either case) and yet this book was slow in gaining universal usage
> and acceptance in the church may point to pseudonymity (although the
> apocalyptic nature of the book would be enough to scare off many literalist
> Latins and others as well).
> I find it fascinating that the NT book of Revelation is the only
> complete apocalyptic book in the Bible. Daniel has its passages,
> (Trito-)Isaiah, Ezekiel, (Deutero-)Zechariah too. The gospels have their
> "little apocalypses". And brother Paul gives some theological insights
> reflected from apocalyptic sources (1 Thess 4-5, 2 Thess, etc). But still
> Revelation stands alone, if one does not count 2 Esdras in the apocrypha.
> BTW, what exactly is the "Prophetic" genre, and can you give some
> examples of it?
>
> In Christ,
>
> Tim Staker
Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada
wooden@acadiau.ca
------------------------------
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 11:33:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Baptism
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 14:18:38 -0600 (GMT-0600)
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
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.
In an attempt to get back to the NT from ecclesiology, here's a
question. In the NT, there are several examples of Christian baptism,
nearly all in Acts, the rest alluded to by Paul.
My memory (possibly faulty) tells me that these were all done by those
who carried some ecclesial authority. Philip, for example, was a
deacon. Is there any example in the NT of a baptism by someone who
was not clearly part of the authority structure of the church at that
time?
Michael
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 95 09:54:38 PST
Subject: Re: No Subject/Apocalypse
Tim,
Pseudonymity is not the only issue. In addition, there is:
1. a lack of the standard review of world history
2. A pessimistic view of world history
BTW, why shouldn't we identify John the apostle with John of Ephesus?
I can't explain the prophecy genre. I only read the suggestion.
I'd like to know why it is thought Revelation wasn't written against the
background of persecution.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 95 12:07:00 CST
Subject: Re: genre of Revelation
Georg asks me to elaborate on my view that Revelation is best viewed as an
anti-apocalypse.
It seems to me that one reason for attempting to determine the
genre of any work is that doing so may give you some clue as to
why the author makes the choices he does in terms of literary structure. But
classifying works has another important function as well. It's a short-hand
way of giving a general impression, not only of literary technique, but also
of the meaning of the work and the author's values.
To call a work "an apocalypse" tells you something about literary
technique. But it also implies that that work comes out of a certain mileu
and is likely to reflect the ideas and values of other works written in the
same genre. This, I think, is not the case with Revelation. In terms of
theology, christology, anthropology, soteriology, and ecclesiology,
Revelation has far more in common with the other books of the canonical NT
than with the typical "apocalypse." To call Revelation an anti-apocalypse
emphasizes this point.
Secondly, my guess is that John is, at least to some extent, writing in
deliberate opposition to the views expressed in much apocalyptic writing.
He calls his book "The Revelation of *Jesus Christ*," highlighting the
idea that *this* (and no other revelation) is authoritative.
By the way, I am glad to find that someone besides me cringes when they hear
"apocalyptic" used as a noun.
------------------------------
From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 95 12:21:00 CST
Subject: Re: Baptism
Acts 9 (the conversion and baptism of Paul) is worth considering if you're
looking for someone outside the normal chain of command baptizing. Ananias
is called only "a certain disciple," not a deacon, elder, or anything else.
Ananias certainly lays hands on Paul both for healing and so that Paul may
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the natural implication would be
that it is Ananias who baptizes Paul (although vs. 18 only says that Paul was
baptized, not indicating by whom). Does the fact that Paul receives the Holy
Spirit through a non-apostle suggest that there may be exceptions to the
*usual* method of doing everything through properly consecrated spriritual
authorities? =)
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 12:27:36 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Baptism
On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Michael I Bushnell wrote:
> In an attempt to get back to the NT from ecclesiology, here's a
> question. In the NT, there are several examples of Christian baptism,
> nearly all in Acts, the rest alluded to by Paul.
>
> My memory (possibly faulty) tells me that these were all done by those
> who carried some ecclesial authority. Philip, for example, was a
> deacon. Is there any example in the NT of a baptism by someone who
> was not clearly part of the authority structure of the church at that
> time?
Now we've got at least one, and maybe two or three interesting questions.
(1) Paul in 1 Cor 1:10-17 names the persons whom he remembers having
baptized in the Corinthian congregation and implies that the rest of the
congregation were baptized by others. It would appear, if we read between
the lines, that the "erides" in the congregation involve several cliques
denominating themselves by the name of the one who baptized them. I
don't think this is the only possible interpretation of the passage--and
Paul seems to be guessing at the meaning of what "hoi Xlohs" have told
him--but if this guess is right, it means that several members of this
congregation have been baptized by unnamed others. Then the question is:
are/were the baptizers insiders from the Corinthian congregation? or
outsiders who have come from other Christian congregations in the
Hellenistic world? Apollos is named here; presumably this is the Apollos
from Alexandria (although that too is not all that obvious), and if it
is, then we have the question where Apollos got his authority? Who held
authority in the Corinthian congregation in the absence of Paul? This
silence of Paul about authority figures in some of those letters that are
clearly addressed to particular congregations, and the uncertainty about
the exact functions of those referred to in others (Phil 1:1--EPISKOPOIS
KAI DIAKONOIS) is precisely the problem I was referring to yesterday: it
appears that there is a gap--at least in our knowledge of the
facts--between the establishment of the communities and intelligible
evidence of an authority structure associated with performance of ritual
and administrative functions.
(2) You refer to Philip as a "diakonos." While I know that tradition
tends to view the "Seven" in Acts 6 as the first "Deacons" and derives
the name from the function supposedly given them in that episode (waiting
on tables, overseeing the distribution of food), I think Acts 6 offers us
a very unsatisfactory account of the appointment and function of the
Seven. First of all, they almost all have Greek names and so are clearly
associated with the "Hellenes" who are said to be at odds with the
"Ioudaioi." But then the functional division between the Twelve and the
Seven is said to be that the Twelve are evangelists while the Seven are
kitchen-and-warehouse administrators. Yet it is clear from Acts 6 itself
that this is inadequate because Stephen here (and Philip later) are
functioning as evangelists and Philip is baptizing. If Stephen had been
only administering food distribution he would never have gotten into
trouble with Jewish authorities. So: there are traditions underlying Acts
6 that appear to point to emerging institutional structure, but the
account offered us is rather murky. Where are you Luke/Acts people who
know how to sort these issues out?
I'm still inclined to think that we don't have enough information on
baptism in the early church--i.e. in the NT era__to formulate a clear
picture of the form of the ritual and of its authoritative celebrant.
There are tantalizing hints here and there, phraseology of removal of one
suit of clothes and putting on new clothes after baptism, etc., etc. But
it seems to me so many fragments that do not clearly mesh together to
form a complete picture.
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: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 11:34:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Baptism
We also do not know whence Apollos' authority comes-apostolic fiat or
charismatic call?
- -Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@billings.lib.mt.us
------------------------------
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 16:33:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Baptism
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 12:27:36 -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
(1) Paul in 1 Cor 1:10-17 names the persons whom he remembers having
baptized in the Corinthian congregation and implies that the rest of the
congregation were baptized by others. It would appear, if we read between
the lines, that the "erides" in the congregation involve several cliques
denominating themselves by the name of the one who baptized them. I
don't think this is the only possible interpretation of the passage--and
Paul seems to be guessing at the meaning of what "hoi Xlohs" have told
him--but if this guess is right, it means that several members of this
congregation have been baptized by unnamed others. Then the question is:
are/were the baptizers insiders from the Corinthian congregation? or
outsiders who have come from other Christian congregations in the
Hellenistic world? Apollos is named here; presumably this is the Apollos
from Alexandria (although that too is not all that obvious), and if it
is, then we have the question where Apollos got his authority? Who held
authority in the Corinthian congregation in the absence of Paul? This
silence of Paul about authority figures in some of those letters that are
clearly addressed to particular congregations, and the uncertainty about
the exact functions of those referred to in others (Phil 1:1--EPISKOPOIS
KAI DIAKONOIS) is precisely the problem I was referring to yesterday: it
appears that there is a gap--at least in our knowledge of the
facts--between the establishment of the communities and intelligible
evidence of an authority structure associated with performance of ritual
and administrative functions.
I don't think this is really the point. Paul doesn't give us enough
to recognize a particular ecclesiology--but that's not the question I
was asking. In every case where someone was baptized, it is clear
that the baptizer had some particular authority. The Corithians had a
unity problem, in part because they divided themselves into factions
based upon who baptized each one. But this is actually evidence for
my position: clearly, each faction saw the person who baptized them as
an authority.
Paul doesn't contest the authority relationship, but he does give
thanks that his authority does not derive from any role of baptizer he
might have. This supports further the idea that while leaders have
the job of baptizing, it is God that baptizes, and the fact of baptism
is vastly more important than which leader it is who baptizes. So
while we have very little understanding of the way authority happened
in Corinth, it is clear that there were authorities, and clear that
baptism was linked to the ministry of those authorities. And, to
repeat, it is also clear that Paul's authority did not depend on his
being a baptizer, but on his apostolic commission.
(2) You refer to Philip as a "diakonos." While I know that tradition
tends to view the "Seven" in Acts 6 as the first "Deacons" and derives
the name from the function supposedly given them in that episode (waiting
on tables, overseeing the distribution of food), I think Acts 6 offers us
a very unsatisfactory account of the appointment and function of the
Seven. First of all, they almost all have Greek names and so are clearly
associated with the "Hellenes" who are said to be at odds with the
"Ioudaioi." But then the functional division between the Twelve and the
Seven is said to be that the Twelve are evangelists while the Seven are
kitchen-and-warehouse administrators. Yet it is clear from Acts 6 itself
that this is inadequate because Stephen here (and Philip later) are
functioning as evangelists and Philip is baptizing. If Stephen had been
only administering food distribution he would never have gotten into
trouble with Jewish authorities. So: there are traditions underlying Acts
6 that appear to point to emerging institutional structure, but the
account offered us is rather murky. Where are you Luke/Acts people who
know how to sort these issues out?
It is true that the seven are not actually given the name deacon in
the text. But the objection that they can't have been deacons in the
later Catholic sense seems to come from people who haven't really been
paying attention to deacons. Preaching and baptizing have always been
associated with the diaconate right along with other forms of service.
I'm still inclined to think that we don't have enough information on
baptism in the early church--i.e. in the NT era__to formulate a clear
picture of the form of the ritual and of its authoritative celebrant.
There are tantalizing hints here and there, phraseology of removal of one
suit of clothes and putting on new clothes after baptism, etc., etc. But
it seems to me so many fragments that do not clearly mesh together to
form a complete picture.
My question was much more limited. It was not "tell me all about the
liturgical practice of baptism" but "are there any cases where someone
not acknowledged to be a leader baptized another?" The answer would
seem to be "no".
Michael
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 17:05:54 CST
Subject: Re: Baptism
On Thu, 30 Mar 1995, Michael I Bushnell wrote:
>The Corinthians had a
>unity problem, in part because they divided themselves into factions
>based upon who baptized each one.
While Paul clearly thought that his having baptized someone might have given
them reason to think they were in his camp (1 Cor 1:14-16), he was clear that
he did not baptize them in his name so that they might belong to him (v.13).
Actually, he could only remember 3 families that he had baptized, even though
Acts 18:8 says that POLLOI TWN KORINQIWN were baptized. Apparently he quickly
allowed others to baptize as part of his missionary strategy. In some places
like Thessalonica he was forced to leave rather soon.
I realize that this is an argument from silence, but if ecclesiastical
authority in baptism in the 1st century was anywhere close to what Ignatius in
the 2nd century (Smy. 8:2) thought it was, it is remarkable that it is nowhere
mentioned.
As to the statement above, I doubt that the divisions at Corinth were based on
who had baptized the person; Paul had only baptized 3 families that he could
remember. Besides, how many of those in the Christ party had been baptized by
Jesus?
>My question was much more limited. It was not "tell me all about the
>liturgical practice of baptism" but "are there any cases where someone
>not acknowledged to be a leader baptized another?" The answer would
>seem to be "no".
Besides the many Corinthians mentioned above, someone has already mentioned on
the list that Paul himself was baptized by Ananias, who is just identified as
a disciple. Is it too much to read into Acts 11:20-21 that the Greeks in
Antioch who turned to the Lord were baptized, even though those who preached
the gospel to them who so unauthorized that the Jerusalem church had to send
Barnabas to check on the situation? Notably he exhorted them to remain
faithful rather than baptizing them. To that one might add the Ethiopian
eunuch. It is remarkable that he was baptized, went on to Ethiopia, and the
next time in church history that we hear about Ethiopia there is a thriving
church there.
Even though in the authoritarian East Ignatius taught in the second century
that one could not be baptized without the bishop, Tertullian years later in
the mission field West admitted that a disciple could baptize if no bishop,
elder, or deacon were present (_On Baptism_, 17).
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #640
*****************************
** 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