[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #647
b-greek-digest Monday, 3 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 647
In this issue:
Dead Sea Scrolls
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Date of Revelation
DSS Revealed CD-ROM
program
Date of Revelation
Pliny
Doudna, on Roman Emperor in Revelation
Further ramblings on Lexica
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Pliny
Re: Date of Revelation
On Roman emperors in Revelation
Re: Lexicons
Re: DDS Revealed
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Revelation and the Canon ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ROBERT MONDORE <MONDORER@a1.cs.hscsyr.edu>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 1995 06:57:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Dead Sea Scrolls
Due to the recent reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls on the Internet,
I am forwarding the following FTP address for files on the same.
I have verified this address.
Ftp to:
ftp.loc.gov
Do an anonymous login, then go through the following directories (cd to
each in turn):
pub
exhibit.images
deadsea.scrolls.exhibit
exhibit
There are pictures and text available for downloading.
Shalom,
Bob
------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 1995 17:20:26 -0100
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
Carlton Winbery Louisiana College wrote:
> Carl Conrad wrote
> "I just don't see how it (Revelation) can be as early as the sixties."
>
>
> I agree completely. I know that in recent years the tendency
> has been to attribute Revelation to the threat of persecution
> or to general conditions, but I think that Domitian is getting
> let off the hook. Coins certainly support the claim to divinity
> and the historians while not telling us about government
> sponsored persecutions certainly picture the demand for
> worship.
There is no doubt that the emperors did claim to divinity but it didn't
start with Domitian and there is no evidence that the Christians were
ever treated as "superstitious" in the first century. The neronian
persecution is explained otherwise.
> He had one of his own assistents killed for "atheism,"
> a charge later leveled at Christians.
Yes, exactly: _later_.
> The letter of Pliny, the
> younger from Pontus shows that persecution was a matter of
> course less than a generation later and even mentions some who
> had recanted of being Christians as long ago as 20 years. I
> don't think that the governor of a province just north of Asia
> could have assumed that a person who would not deny being a
> Christian should be punished "for such pertinacity" whether
> they have committed any crimes or not unless it had already
> been done for some time.
I think this is wrong. If there were a somewhat established procedure
then Pliny didn't need to ask the emperor what to do. And neither Pliny's
letter nor Trajan's answer seems to support any theory of persecution.
> I think the evidence of persecution of
> Christians at least by local rulers in Asia and elsewhere
> during the time of Domitian has a lot of evidence to support
> it. Revelation 13 surely reflects this persecution from Rome
> (the beast that comes by sea) and the local rulers (the two
> horned beast who usesl his power received from the first beast
> to make people worship the first beast.)
I have commented on this topic elsewhere.
> The claim that the
> temple must still be standing for chapter 11 to make sense does
> not stand up.
I do agree. But it does not prohibit that the temple might still be
standing.
> The ancient tabernacle built by Moses would fit chapter 11
> even better.
I'm not sure about this. Richard Bauckham argues in his book _The Climax
of Prophecy_ that it must be the temple. I think he probably is right.
[something deleted]
> ... To orient his message too much toward the remote future
> is what whacky interpretations (I hope that's not too harsh.)
Well, yes in a way. But Jesus, Paul, Hebrews etc. oriented their message
toward the present time but didn't abstain from mentioning things which
were to happen in the perhaps remote future. What is going to happen on
the Last Day is certainly of utmost importance for the present time. If
you take a look a chapter 1-3 you will se the future used again with
present importance.
- --
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 1995 17:43:22 -0100
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com> wrote:
I'd just like to throw an additional question into the ring
in terms of the dating of Revelation. If it appears to
require a setting in late 1st cent. Asia, why isn't it taken
as prima facie evidence of a persecution of Christians
otherwise undocumented? Why does evverything in the NT fall
under suspcion because it can't be externally verified? I'd
have to throw out an awful lot of what I think is history, if
one source is not adequate to establish the event, and I
don't mean just ancient history.
I agree that the NT is enough, if it must or probably must be
interpreted that way. However, that's the question. I think that the
interpretation was based on the proposed _historical_ persecution
otherwise documented. This is surely the case if you take a look on
most critical commentaries. Now, if we agree that the persecution is
otherwise undocumented then let us discuss what evidence there
actually is of persecution in Revelation and what kind of persecution
it was, and when it seems to be happening (e.g. in the time of John or
somewhere later or perhaps generally in the period of the church).
Then we can make better foundations for our interpretation, I think.
- --
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: Robert Kraft <kraft@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 12:43:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: DSS Revealed CD-ROM
For access to the DSS class resources, including a review of the DSS
Revealed CD-ROM from Logos Systems (which is even cheaper than the
announced price from CBD or other discounters), those with WWW can
consult my homepage, under courses, RelSt 225 DSS.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.http
The material is actually on the ccat gopher, if that is an easier route
to travel (under Credit Courses > Religious Studies > 225). There are
minutes from each class, other informational items, and a growing
directory of reviews of older books on DSS (an exercise to bring the
students into the almost half century of discussions of these
materials).
The CD-ROM is a marvelous resource, with some items not easily available
elsewhere (and some frustrating lacunae, such as the absence of the
Cairo Geniza copies of the Damascus Document). Although Logos Systems
apparently does not have an index of the materials that it is willing to
circulate, we are preparing such an index, part of which is already
available with the class materials. The index allows you to go directly
to a given MS or piece of text information (or movie clip, after we
finish with the photos and texts) without using the CD-ROM software
itself -- that is, the CD-ROM can be used as a data delivery device as
well as an interactive package. Thus you can call up into MS-Word any of
the textual pieces, or into Adobe Photoshop any of the pictures (which
can then be manipulated further). It is a great value!
Bob Kraft, UPenn
------------------------------
From: GLLang@aol.com
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 17:26:51 -0400
Subject: program
Been off line for a while. Can anyone give information concerning the new
version of LOGOS that is coming out? How will it rate with BibleWorks 3.0?
What would be the benefits one over the other? Thanks for the info. It
will be greatly appreciated.
GLLang
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 15:25:43 -0700
Subject: Date of Revelation
Carl Conrad wrote:
> I just don't see how it (Revelation) can be as early as the
> sixties.
And Carlton Winbery responded:
> I agree completely. . . .
Until Lightfoot, in a commentary on the letter of Clement,
created the scholarly construction of the Domitianic
persecution, Revelation was virtually unanimously dated to
the time of the Jewish War, specifically in the time of
Galba, 68 CE. It was the perception of an historical
wide-ranging persecution by Domitian that caused the majority
of commentators to shift to the later Domitianic dating for
Revelation.
In recent years, the Domitianic persecution has not held up
well to scrutiny, and mainstream commentators (e.g. Adela
Yarbro Collins) have reinterpreted Revelation to have been
produced as a response to "relative deprivation" and "perceived
crisis" rather than an actual crisis--still maintaining the
Domitianic date.
But why insist on the time of Domitian at all?
The clearest internal reference dating Revelation is the
apparent temporal sequence of the "seven heads" of the beast
from the sea of Rev 17:9-11. Five have fallen, one "is",
one is to come and last but a short time, and then the
eighth will be the worst.
No need to depart from standard and reasonable interpretation
here that these heads of the beast refer to Roman emperors.
Five are past at the time of writing of Revelation: Augustus,
Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. The sixth "is"--
this is Galba, who ruled for a period of only six months,
from June 68 to January 69.
This is the internal dating of the time of (at least this
portion of) Revelation--in the midst of the Jewish war which
was then raging at this time. (Revelation's projections
ahead to the seventh and eighth heads need have no historical
counterparts since these are projected ahead from the time of
writing. But they do appear to reflect expectations of a
returning, surviving Nero from the east.)
The Domitianic dating theory proponents accept that the
beast is Rome and that the seven heads refer to emperors
in sequence. But the three emperors who reigned in quick
succession after Nero are ARBITRARILY skipped, as if they
"don't count." But no ancient classical source, to my
knowledge, skips these three. They counted as Roman
emperors everywhere else outside the writings of commentators
on Revelation deciding to omit them in the interests of
harmonizing with a Domitianic dating. See J. Christian
Wilson, "The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation",
_New Testament Studies_ 39 (1993): 587-605.
Revelation appears to derive from Asia Minor and to draw on
distorted and real information and rumor from Judea c. 68 CE,
in anticipation of a successful holy war against Rome
following a bloodbath which would spread to the provinces.
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov
- --
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 19:06:39 -0400
Subject: Pliny
Georg Adamsen
wrote in response to my statement about Pliny
"I think this is wrong. If there were a somewhat established procedure then
Pliny didn't need to ask the emperor what to do."
Pliny was not writing just to ask if he should punish Christians but for
information about special cases like the old or those who recanted or women.
The clear assumption seems to be that those who owned up to it should be
punished. That seems to me to be persecution. My point is that it seems to
have been going on for some time. Such attitudes just did not appear
overnight out of the blue.
Carlton Winbery
Louisiana College
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 1995 19:54:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Doudna, on Roman Emperor in Revelation
I have no particular stake in the date question; but I think it isn't
quite cricket to assert flatly that one knows which emperors are referred to
in the sequence of beasts. Even our lowliest students are taught to
recognize that there are several ways these emperors have been named
and numbered. See, for example, the neat chart on page 2330 of the
HarperCollins Study Bible (the SBL-sponsored one, edited by Wayne Meeks).
There are eight--count them, EIGHT--different ways of counting the
emperors signified in Rev. 17.
There are actually some scholars who still believe that the Apocalypse
as we now have it is a revision of an earlier Apocalypse. True or not,
such a position complicates most of the arguments which have gone on
about date.
When you figure out the date, let me know; I still don't know it.
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 1995 19:55:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Further ramblings on Lexica
Several more comments and inquiries re: lexicons have come in, to which
I think I should respond.
(1) Ken Share has shared (!) his knowledge of a new Supplement to LSJ,
replacing Barber's (1968). (I missed this catalog, apparently; mine
was Winter, and doesn't mention it.) $100 for the whole LSJM, plus the
new Supplement, sounds like a great deal. (I don't really need a
fourth copy of LSJM, do I? But $52 for the 288 page Supplement alone
seems steep, when all the rest [2,111 pages] costs only another $48.)
He also mentions the ABS publication of a Lexicon to the LXX. I
didn't mention this for two reasons. It is only half finished, though
the rest is due out before Christmas. And it is a somewhat sketchy
job, doing little of what such a lexicon should do (perhaps for the
reasons I outlined in my previous post). The A-I volume (paperback),
which came out three years ago, is $24 plus handling charge and tax.
It has 217 pages, plus introduction. Share is right -- I should have
mentioned it, and didn't.
(2) Perry Stepp touches on three matters:
He heard that a new edition of BAGD "is due out soon." Two years
ago, Fred Danker wrote that a revision is "due out before the year
2000." But when I talked with him at length eight or nine months later
(Nov. 1993), he was really vague about it; he more or less blamed U. of
Chicago Press for stalling, and when I pressed him on a number of
aspects of the lexicon which desperately need correction, he again was
a bit vague about when (even if) anything could be done about them,
within any easily foreseeable time. Thus, while I hope that Stepp's
informant was right (if so, to whom do we send criticisms and
revisions?), I do not think one should hold off on a purchase now in
hopes of getting something better soon.
He likes the "Little BAG" for portability. I tried using it with
students for a few years after it came out, but it was SO brief, had so
few "helps", and cost such a high proportion of the complete BAG, that
I switched to requiring BAG (later BAGD). To tell the truth, if I were
pushed into a corner on recommending a "portable" lexicon for NT Greek,
I think I'd try for Abbott-Smith, should it be still available and at a
reasonable price. (See below for more on Abbott-Smith.)
Finally, Stepp asks about the Schmoller Handkonkordanz. We had
quite a discussion of it a few years ago, when I spoke very negatively
about the Schmoller--as too bulky, and too unhelpful in many ways. But
that is not the case with the Beate Koester revision of Schmoller,
which is a lovely little volume ($24.50 + handling) with quite a few
nice features. I don't use it much at all, since I seem to know where
most of the passages are which use the words in it (I was then accused
of having memorized the Greek New Testament! --untrue); almost every
time I try to find a usage in it, I can't find it there and have to use
the Aland Computer Concordance or the (fine) old Moulton and Geden.
But for students and those not professionally into the New Testament,
the Schmoller-Koester [no relation to Helmut Koester] is very good, and
in a wonderful small format, nicely printed (neither was true of
Schmoller before Koester).
(3) Dave Nesbitt asked about _A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New
Testament_ by G. Abbott-Smith (a Canadian!). This came out in 1921,
1923, and 1937 (editions 1 through 3), and reprinted almost endlessly
since then, by T. & T. Clark (Edinburgh). I don't have their current
catalog right near me just now, so I can't say if it is still printed,
nor at what price. But it was beyond question the lexicon of choice
prior to the appearance of Bauer in English; I used it with my classes
in those pre-1957 years. It includes quite a bit of information from
the papyri, it gives many references to use of the word in LXX with the
original Hebrew word (even pointed!) behind the Greek term or word or
usage, and includes a plethora of passages cited. It also gives
etymologies (dangerous though that is?). I have a copy of it before me
now (1950 printing), and another in my study. I had tended to forget
about it, in view of BAGD being available; but for portability
(reasonable, anyway) it is the lexicon of choice, I guess, assuming the
price is reasonable. I would much prefer it to the "little BAG" done
by my old Chicago buddy Wilbur Gingrich, because it contains so much
more--far more.
(4) James Ernest mentions the high price of Lampe (Patristic Greek
Lexicon). Indeed, indeed! It is the only lexicon of ancient Greek
which I do not own, because of this sad fact; I jog to the library when
I need it! (I own two, or even three, of everything else, so I'll be
sure to have one whether I'm in either office or in my study.) Maybe
this List would like to start a fund-raising effort to buy me a copy of
Lampe, for my 70th birthday perhaps . . . .
Your extensively brief colleague,
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 19:49:43 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
Just one little note to add to Greg's nice discussion, which does seem to
assume that the beast is indeed the Roman empire;it is that the beast
sits on seven mountains. While this looks like a shoo-in for the
traditional Roman septimontium, the fact that seven recurs so frequently
in the book as a whole sort of undercuts any specific identification,
although on occasion it appears to suggest one (or more!)
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: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 19:55:54 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Pliny
On Sun, 2 Apr 1995 WINBROW@aol.com wrote:
> Georg Adamsen
> wrote in response to my statement about Pliny
> "I think this is wrong. If there were a somewhat established procedure then
> Pliny didn't need to ask the emperor what to do."
> Pliny was not writing just to ask if he should punish Christians but for
> information about special cases like the old or those who recanted or women.
> The clear assumption seems to be that those who owned up to it should be
> punished. That seems to me to be persecution. My point is that it seems to
> have been going on for some time. Such attitudes just did not appear
> overnight out of the blue.
And to Carlton Winbery's note I will add that many a reader of Pliny (the
Younger, lest there be any confusion on this) may get the impression that
he is a capable but prissy fellow who will not venture very far in the
administration of a province without making sure that his every
definitive action had approval. While it is possible that Trajan earned
such high marks as an emperor by making sure that every provincial
governor conferred with him on every problem as did Pliny (just READ Book
10), but I marvel at his patience with poor Pliny.
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: JefferisP@aol.com
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 22:27:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
> Just one little note to add to Greg's nice discussion, which does seem
> to assume that the beast is indeed the Roman empire;it is that the
> beast sits on seven mountains. While this looks like a shoo-in for the
> traditional Roman septimontium, the fact that seven recurs so frequently
Just a parting post to you all, and thanks for the discussion over faith in
Jesus.
An alternate interpretation for Revelation can be found in an excellent work
by David Chilton, called Days of Vengeance, Dominion Press,1987 Ft. Worth
ISBN# 0-930462-09-2
Taking his cue from OT symbols used throughout the book, he argues that
Revelation is a Covenant Lawsuit from an offended God against his Covenant
People ( The Jews) who have rejected him and who are instead persecuting the
new Jewish & Gentile Church of the early 60's.
Rome enters the picture ONLY because the Jews were turning in Jewish
Christians to Roman Authorities (Acts gives us a glimpse of how common this
was at that time) The Jews had a recognized and accepted legal status in
Rome, which the Christians did not and were thus subject to State
interference. This Covenant Lawsuit is culminated in the fulfilled prophecies
of the destruction of the Temple and is filled with constant encouragement
towards the saints who are enduring the persecution: 1) that God is in
Control, 2) he will soon bring deliverance through the destruction of their
enemies.
It removes much of the future orientation that is common in current
speculative interpretation and relates it to historical events at the time
the book was written. It makes a case for amillenialism that is biblically
based. Even if you don't agree with all the conclusions, it is a respectable
work.
Jefferis Kent Peterson
Center For Biblical Literacy
P.O.Box 1736
Lawrenceville, GA 30246-1736
"Love the Lord with all your....mind."
AOL: JefferisP
Internet: JefferisP@aol.com
CompuServe: 73061,1777
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 20:14:15 -0700
Subject: On Roman emperors in Revelation
Edward Hobbs wrote:
> See, for example, the neat chart on page 2330 of the Harper
> Collins Study Bible (the SBL-sponsored one, edited by Wayne
> Meeks). There are eight--count them, EIGHT--different ways
> of counting the emperors signified in Rev. 17.
Yes, and six of them are figments of commentators'
imaginations :-). I admit I'm answering from my memory of
this chart, not having it at hand, but as I recall six
systems involve excising emperors out of the list, without
any external attestation that this was a normal way to
list Roman emperors.
The only real argument that seems legitimate is whether to
start the emperors with Augustus (Tacitus) or Julius Caesar
(Seutonius). The sixth, the one who "is" at the time of
Revelation's writing, then is either Galba (June 68-Jan 69)
or Nero (54-68).
For a variety of reasons I believe the old dating at the time
of Galba is the correct one. J. Christian Wilson, in his
articles dismantling the Domitian dating, does not take a
position on this issue (of whether Nero was fifth or sixth).
The issue is not nearly as complicated as that chart makes it.
All systems start from either Julius or Augustus. Then it is
a matter of counting forward to the sixth, and arriving at
Nero or Galba.
Then the other material in Revelation falls into place (well,
a lot of it): the lust for vengeance on the city "Babylon"
for its murder of the saints is derivative from the recent
Neronian persecution of 64; the temple is still standing in
Rev 11:1-2; the destruction of "Babylon" is the anticipated
outcome of Vespasian's march on Rome to conquer his rivals;
666 is the number of the slain Nero believed to be alive and
in hiding in Parthia to return; the anticipation that
144,000 Jews from the twelve tribes will defeat the whole
known world reflects someone's optimistic imagination of the
outcome of the Jewish Revolt; and Josephus's defection and
prophetic hailing of Vespasian as future emperor and messiah
is seen (slightly exaggerated) in 13:11-18.
The Jewish Revolt was a time of signs and wonders, prophets
and visions, as Josephus reports. Here is the context for
the production of Revelation, with its terrible visions,
curses on Rome, natural disasters and calamities depicting
a time of war, and call to holy war from the twelve tribes.
This, to me, is what is clearly indicated from the internal
evidence: the time of Galba, c. 68-69, and the assumption
of real prophecy deriving from this time, fits.
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: David Moore <Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 21:39:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Lexicons
Steve Thompson <STEPTHOM@brownvm.brown.edu> quoted and wrote:
>Carl Conrad noted the following:
>"What I would
>decidedly NOT recommend is the little dictionary that was meant to
>accompany the UBS3 Greek New Testament, in my judgment the most useless
>hodge-podge of inadequate lexicography that I've ever seen. That's a
>harsh judgment, but will anyone on the list dispute it?"
>I would be interested in hearing additional opinions about the little
>lexicon in the UBS3 GNT. I find it useful when I want to read a little
>greek "on the road," and I can't lug around BAGD or L-N. But I've
never
>done a systematic comparison of it with the other lexica. And when I
say
>"a little greek," I mean it. I'm a novice at NT Greek, so I would
appreciate
>additional comments from Carl and others on this little lexicon.
I, too, sometimes use the little UBS dictionary when I need
something that will fit in my briefcase while on the road, but then I
use it more as a refresher for my memory of vocabulary than as a lexical
aid. As someone familiar with lexicons available in both English and
Spanish, IMHO, the little UBS lexicon (available also in Spanish) is not
the worst thing around. If you can fit in a book that's about 5/8 of an
inch thicker, however, the BAGD shorter lexicon is highly recommendable.
David L. Moore Director of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 01:13:50 -0400
Subject: Re: DDS Revealed
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
CC: KDONFRIED@smith.smith.edu
From: Timster132@aol.com
Karl Donfried asked,
>Is this program available for the MAC? And, if so, from whom? A >phone
number etc would be most helpful. Thanks.
Yes it is for the MAC or Windows. It will work on either platforms.
List $59.95
Logos Research Systems, Inc
2117 200th Avenue West
Oak Harbour, WA 98277
1 (800) 87 LOGOS
In Christ,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 01:13:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
cc: kenneth@sybase.com
Ken, you threw this Question into the ring:
> If it appears to require a setting in late 1st cent. Asia, why >isn't it
taken as prima facie evidence of a persecution
>of Christians otherwise undocumented? Why does evverything >in the NT fall
under suspcion because it can't be externally >verified? I'd have to throw
out an awful lot of what I think is >history, if one source is not adequate
to establish the event, >and I don't mean just ancient history.
If we can better understand the context (historical, literary, etc) in
which the document is written, the idea is that we may be better able to under
stand its message.
Now, I do I think there is a place for reading the Bible uncritically,
in a devotional sense, especially for making personal insights. In fact, the
NT is written in such a way as to convince its readers/hearers of the gospel.
But we are also encouraged to study the Scriptures, to become sons and
daughters of the mitzvah, to know them WELL. And that means asking
questions. Who wrote it? Why? Where? To whom? etc. All of these
questions lead us to having a better understanding of the text.
You ask why it isn't taken prima face what the text says. Well, one
reason is that we are simply asking questions.
When the text says EGW IWANNHS O ADELPHOS UMWN KAI SYGKOINWNOS EN TH
THLIPSEI (1:9), we can't help but wonder, when was this persecution? was it
one that we know about from other sources? If it isn't found in any other
sources, then what kind of persecution was it? Or is John the Revelator
referring to something else, a general sense of persecution and not a
specific period of persecution?
So you see, questioning the text is a part of the long tradition of
hermeneutics.
None of the NT writings were written as history per se, but were
gospels, epistles, and an "apocalypse". Their main agenda was to propogate
the good news. Even Luke's Acts is not as much a historical document as it
is an expression of the faith-- Luke definitely has his agenda. Because we
can recognize this, it is fair to question historical information that is
found in the NT. Its not that the NT doesn't have historical value, but just
that it is limited as a historical source. So, to confirm a historical
aspect of the NT with an outside source gives a higher degree of historical
certainty to the event.
The NT isn't the only ancient text to come under this scrutiny. It is a
SYGKOINWNOS EN TH THLIPSEI of historical criticism with others. Modern
sources as well.
A couple of weeks ago I visited Plymouth Rock in New England. And there
are some doubts to its historicity. But that doesn't take away its symbolic
power. As one historian noted, it may or may not be historical that the
Mayflower folks first stepped on this rock as they came to the new continent--
- - but it isn't a such a terrible tradition that this country was founded on
a rock.
In Christ,
Tim Staker (Timster132@aol.com)
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 01:13:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Revelation and the Canon ...
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
cc: gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk
From: Timster132@aol.com
Georg, on Apr 1, you responded....
>As far as I remember the canon history, this was one of
>the _sine qua non_ canonical features. They didn't _invent_
>the idea of Revelation having apostolic authorship.
It seems to me that this is a real possibility. As I have said
previously, one of the general canonical prerequisites was
that a book was the teaching of an apostle, and therefore, authoritative.
For books that lacked clear apostolic authorship, there was definitely a
motive to create such connections. Early traditions
do indeed reflect this was the case (E.g., Mark based on Peter, Hebrews
attributed to Paul, and then there's 2 Peter.)
That the Church identified John the Revelator with John the Apostle/Gospel
and Epistle Writer is a given. And its easy
to see how this would have helped the book gain acceptance.
In our day, since we don't have an obligation to make this connection, we
can perceive the how the Revelator and the
Apostle are not necessarily the same person.
So, I think it is very possible (if not probable) that the Church
"invented" or construed a connection between the Revelator
and the Apostle.
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #647
*****************************
** 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