[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #648
b-greek-digest Monday, 3 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 648
In this issue:
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Revelation and the Canon ...
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Lexicons
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: genre of Revelation (sorry, a rather long note)
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Revelation and the Canon ...
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Baptism
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Pliny
Re: genre of Revelation (sorry, a rather long note)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 95 22:32:54 PDT
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
Tim, I'm not disputing asking questins about the NT texts. What I am
asking is why th NT texts are not allowed to serve as historical evidence.
Whether the NT texts seek to provide historical information is in my
opinion an open question and can't just be stated as yes or no. The fact
remains that we believe a lot fo thingsd happened in history on the
basis of only one witness, so to speak. Yet, the NT documents are NEVER
accorded that same sort of status for providing evidence of what happened
in critical scjholarhsip, aand I think it's time for this bias to be
demonstrated. Who thinks Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon? I do, but
I admit right up front that there is onlu one source, a television
broadcast, that actually showed it happening. Everything else is
circumstantial. Yet few question taht he did so. If the Pastorals
paint a picture of church life in a given era, why is it rejected
in spite of the abscence of any other document to show otherwise?
That's preposterous. So again, why are the NT documents singled out
this way?
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
P.S.,
Actually, I'll include the OT documents as well, except the APocrypha,
since no one seems to doubt the Maccabean revolt, though I don't know why
since it only has a few literary witnesses, easily suspect, perhaps forged
from Cynic influence!
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 23:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Revelation and the Canon ...
Tim,
I have a few responses to make. The first is to ask you for evidence
from the primary sources that the connection to the apostle is
"invented". Mere suggestion that it is so bears about as much weight as
if I suggested that you were a Martian tapping into the Net-conjecture is
a waste of bandwidth, so please provide some sort of evidence or
argumentation to support your assertion.
> > 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.
This is a real misunderstanding of the canonical process. Read the
documents that the various Christian groups produced: what mattered,
especially in the second century, was the validity of the regula
fidei-the rule of faith. Each group, except the Montanists, claimed to
have received from the apostles the truth of God regarding Jesus Christ
and all that that entails. Many groups had documents with titles which
said that they were penned by apostles, and various other Christian
leaders hands. In the end these were decided to be spurious not because
of some solid proof that Peter didn't the gospel which goes by his name,
but because the contents of the document did not match the tradition as
it was believed to have been handed down. Apostolicity was of secondary
concern at best, and even less until the fourth century.
> 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.)
The tradition that Mark is based on Peter's teaching is extemely early,
early enough to be entertained as perhaps being historical fact unless
you can provide evidence otherwise. Read Polycarp, Papias, and
Irenaeus, reportage that goes back to the 60s of the first century.
Hebrews was never universally accepted as of Pauline authorship, in fact
the majority even in the ancient world did not so accept it. 2 Pet has
Peter's name in the first verse, so the attribution to Peter is from the
beginning of that text entrenched, no one questioned it, although it
really did not gain widespread canonical status until the mid 3rd
century, although many were familiar with it before that date. This
would get us into a discussion of pseudipigraphy in the first century and
away from a discussion of canonical history. The titles of the gospels
(according to Matt etc.) were fixed probably by the last decade of the
first century-so within 20 years of their writing. That is pretty close
to suggest that the attribution may have more accuracy than you are
willing to give it-doesn't prove it one way or the other, but I find it
suggestive. See Martin Hengel's _Studies in Mark_. And so we come to
Apocalypse.
> 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.
Well, that is a muddled question. Papias mentions two Johns although it
is unclear whether they are 2 personalities or the same one. Later
writers understood them as 2. And the real question has always been
which of the Johns wrote it. Some tradition can be invoked to support
either one. Notably Dionysus, Origen's pupil, noted that the Apocalypse
could not possibly be written by the same person as the Gospel of John.
Others noted the mention of Patmos on which John Apostle was known to
have been but not John Presbyter. These is of course a brief overview.
And even those who accepted the apostolic origen of the document did not
necessarily accept it as canonical. I note for those interested the
debate between Gaius and Proclus. Gaius rejected the Gospel of John and
the Apocalypse because of the support the Montanists gained from these
two books of the Bible. So remove their supporting evidence, and you
remove the problem. We here again see the invoking of the regula fidei
as the true measure of doctrine and canon for the CHristian church.
Regards,
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 03:19:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
CC: gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk
FROM: TImster132@aol.com
Georg, you said about Revelation.....
>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.
And so every generation has said for the last two thousand years! When
are we going to let go of this Nostradamizing of apocalyptic literature?
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: J.D.F.=van=Halsema%BW_KG%TheoFilos@esau.th.vu.nl
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 95 14:30:37 EET
Subject: Re: Lexicons
With interest I have read the discussion about Greek Lexicons.
I would like to bring forward two opinions on the subject:
1/ I strongly recommend the use of a NON-theological dictionary, i.e.
Liddell-Scott-Jones. In this way one is not too easily brought to
misunderstanding about a specific religious background of certain Nt lemmata.
But also....:
2/ I very much recommend the use of the sixth edition of the Bauer lexicon,
written by the Institute in Muenster, Westfalen
It is a masterwork. It gives twice as much information on the papyri etc than
the fifth edition or the lastest edition of Bauer-Arndt. It only requires
knowledge of the German language.
I hope this latest edition will be translated into English too.
As regards Louw-Nida: too much oriented on the work of translators, I think.
Greetings, Erik
Erik van Halsema PhD Student Free University Amsterdam
<j.d.f.van_halsema@esau.th.vu.nl> Or: jdfvh@dds.nl
------------------------------
From: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 1995 08:35:39 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
Kenneth Litwak asked:
>> 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.
<<
Actually, Ken, Revelation has been treated in just the way you
suggest until fairly recently. But see Leonard Thompson, _The Book
of Revelation_ for the argument that Domitian was badly represented
by the Roman historians of the next century (thus treating the
historians as you claim Revelation is treated!), and that whatever
historical persecution may be reflected in Revelation was sporadic at
most.
One thing to keep clear: sporadic persecution is still dangerous.
And groups which are exposed to it often respond in just the way John
does. Nowhere does Revelation claim systematic persecution is going
on at the time of writing; in fact, some of the seven churches are
quite comfortable. Instead, it suggests that the persecution
underway at the time of writing was a serious concern, and would
likely get worse.
*******************************
Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University
carey@library.vanderbilt.edu
------------------------------
From: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 1995 08:47:17 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: genre of Revelation (sorry, a rather long note)
Thanks, Georg, for your careful reply. I'll respond to a few of your
points.
>>Well, that is not my impression. But maybe we not all agree to what its
socioliterary context is, at least not when it comes to the narrow
context of the author and readers of Revelation. I haven't found any
well<<
By socioliterary context, I mean that Revelation was produced in the
midst of a wide array of Jewish and Hellenistic sources. To say that
Revelation is different from most or all of these is one thing. To
claim that it is an "anti-apocalypse," as Art did, without
considering the literary form and characteristic concerns of
apocalypses, is a different claim.
On the issue of how Revelation differs from Jewish apocalypses,
you--like Art--cited theology. But genre is a literary term, not a
theological one. (You did not respond to this point in my earlier
post.) 2 and 3 Baruch and 4 Ezra all use the format of revelatory
visions to address present evil in the light of heavenly and temporal
redemption. That's apocalyptic, and Revelation participates in the
same pattern. That Revelation shares some theological and pastoral
concerns with the rest of the NT says nothing about its genre.
On the _hthos_ issue, all revelatory literature faces the problem of
legitmation. (Look at Paul in Gal 1!) I meant to imply nothing
negative about Revelation in saying that its generic markers served
that purpose.
*******************************
Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University
carey@library.vanderbilt.edu
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 09:12:51 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
On Mon, 3 Apr 1995, Greg Carey wrote:
> Kenneth Litwak asked:
>
> >> 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.
> <<
>
> Actually, Ken, Revelation has been treated in just the way you
> suggest until fairly recently. But see Leonard Thompson, _The Book
> of Revelation_ for the argument that Domitian was badly represented
> by the Roman historians of the next century (thus treating the
> historians as you claim Revelation is treated!), and that whatever
> historical persecution may be reflected in Revelation was sporadic at
> most.
>
> One thing to keep clear: sporadic persecution is still dangerous.
> And groups which are exposed to it often respond in just the way John
> does. Nowhere does Revelation claim systematic persecution is going
> on at the time of writing; in fact, some of the seven churches are
> quite comfortable. Instead, it suggests that the persecution
> underway at the time of writing was a serious concern, and would
> likely get worse.
Just a couple comments and then a new query:
(1) In response to Ken's original comment, there are a couple of
problems. For one thing, we couldn't very well take Revelation as
evidence for a persecution at a particular time unless we can confidently
date Revelation, but it is pretty difficult to do that without trying to
bring into relationship the internal indications from Revelation with
external evidence for plausible time-frames for the book. Secondly, isn't
this matter of evidence for a historical event, at least to some extent,
a matter of probability, and doesn't the probability increase with the
addition of more credible witnesses? To be quite serious, there have been
things I thought I saw and/or heard that I'd hesitate to acknowledge
happened without some assurance that others saw and heard them also.
Doesn't the old Torah law require the evidence of at least three
witnesses for a conviction? And I think that you overstate the
proposition, Ken, that only NT accounts are subject to this sort of
skepticism from the historians.
(2) I must admit that I found Greg Doudna's arguments for dating
Revelation in the 60's pretty persuasive and in line with my earlier
pointing to external events in Palestine. Interestingly, this would put
it pretty close to the date quite commonly assigned for Mark's gospel,
with its powerful apocalyptic charge.
(3) Now, since we've spent some effort, time, and bandwidth on context
and genre of Revelation, I'd like to ask whether there's even a chance of
a consensus or range of plausible dates and contexts for the Letter to
the Hebrews. Grist for the mill?
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: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 95 09:03:17 PDT
Subject: Re: Revelation and the Canon ...
Tim Staker wrote,
> 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.)
>
Tim, you don't know this. You are reading this motive into the situation.There's no evidence that this is correct except possibly for Hebrews.
Instead of saying that Peter was invented as the source of Mark to give
it apostolic authority, how do you know it's not the case that the
tradition is true and Mark's acceptance is based on an early, true
tradition? This is your reconstruciton. I, on the other hand, accept
the tradition about the Petrine source for Mark and don't doubt the
Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. Naturally, therefore, the reconstructions
for Mark that ignore this tradition to me are unaceeptable because I
believe the tradition to be more reliable, especially in light of all
the documents bearing apostolic names which were rejected by the early
CHurch, than the fanciful or at least unsubstantiated theories
of modern scholars. It's only arrogance IMO to throw away the
tradition carte blanche and replace it with an unprovable speculation.
Ken
> 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
>
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 95 11:16:20 PDT
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
Well, Carl, I didn't mean to imply that multiple attestation is a bad
thing. Obviously, most of us would find suspect a report in the
National Enquirer of a two-headed alien seen by just one person on a
lone country road. I'm not arguing that multiple attestation is bad.
I am suggesting that a lot of historical events that we generally accept
as having taken place ultimately only have one source. It is true
that one does need to know some other way when Revelation was written to
be able to use what it says to recreate the situation at the time.
though that seems to me to be sort of a symbiotic thing. We need both
what the text says and what we know otherwise to try to arrive at this
information. Yet, it clearly seems to me the NT documents are held in
high suspicion. To name just one example, a large number of scholars
were certain that Luke invented the term Asiarch, not giving the NT
any chance of recoridng things properly, until evidence from another
source was found to support Acts. THen no one seemed ready to say that
they had misjudged Acts and this didn't seem to affect anyone's
overall estimation of the historical reliability of Acts, decided, it
seems to me, on both sides, on completely non-empirical grounds.
To all, thank you for your comments and bibliography on this topic.
I don't think I am ready to formulate an opinion, and I had no idea
how complicated the issue was. Thanks to all for your input. I hadn't
actually intended to start such a commotion.
Ken Litwak
Enmeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Michael I Bushnell <mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 1995 15:17:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Baptism
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 1995 15:54:51 CST
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
The question on silence of the scriptures points to a larger one:
Were there commands given by God in the first century which were
intended to be normative for the church for all time, but which
failed to find their way into scripture? If what you are arguing
for is true, the answer to this question is yes.
The previous discussion is getting a bit stale, so I'm going to drop
it. But this larger question deserves some kind of reply, even though
it's considerably off the topic of this list.
The question reflects a very closely delineated approach which can't
possibly accept that some things are very important and generally not
to be violated, without being commands of God. It's a sort of sola
scripture approach, which demands explicit apostolic authority for any
ecclesiastical regulation. I must protest the attempt to force me
into those categories.
Every church I know of is careful to only have ecclesiastical leaders
baptize, except in extremis. A member of such a church who therefore
baptizes (and not in extremis) has placed themselves at schism from
that body.
Michael
------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 1995 18:04:02 -0100
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> 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?
Does _thlipsis_ mean persecution? or doesn't it mean 'trouble including
suffering' which might on occasion be what we term 'persecution'? You
must first ask what kind of trouble (German 'Bedraengnis', 'Drangsal') it
is (or might be) and then you can try to correlate it to what we know
about history. The other way around seems to let the text play the role
of supporting argument and not vice versa.
> 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.
To see that e.g. Luke has his agenda _and_ to question historical
information that is found in the NT is two different procedures, and the
first does not justify the second. Luke has his agenda and he shows it
with the help of what happened. Off course it is good to find outside
sources to support the NT but the historical information is not
questioned only because the author has his agenda. And there is no
historical problems in Revelation as far as I know. But we have some
problems connecting our knowledge of the ancient history with Revelation.
But the NT writers certainly was sure and stressed that what they wrote
and spoke really happened when they said it did, e.g. 1 Kor 15. I
consider this to be fundamentally different compared with the Plymouth
Rock.
- --
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 1995 20:25:30 -0100
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> And so every generation has said for the last two thousand years!
> When are we going to let go of this Nostradamizing of apocalyptic
> literature?
Sorry, maybe I know too little about history, but what do you mean by
"this Nostradamizing of apocalyptic literature"?
- --
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 1995 17:47:12 -0100
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
> 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!)
Does anyone know whether the term "septimontium" was used or known in
Greek? I haven't found it yet.
Anyway I consider it methodologically sound to look at the various
information and place it at the right place in the (or: a sort of)
informational hierarchy (I'm not sure whether my English is good enough
here). That is: it is important to see whether some information is in the
top of the structure and then suited for identifying what reference John
intended it to have, _or_ whether it is used as complementary description
of an otherwise to be identified figure. As I have pointed out, Babylon
and the dragon etc. is placed as the opposite of the trinitarian God. We
have to show that John really meant to refer to Rome/the Roman
Emperor/Empire with these utterances. I doubt it very much.
> --
> Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
>
------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 1995 21:06:04 -0100
Subject: Re: Pliny
Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
> 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.
Maybe I should consult the full text. I have only an extract of it. But
Trajan's answer did not answer what Pliny asked for, if Carl is right.
And even if so were, this is the first certain evidence of persecution by
the authorities. It's still a debatable interpretation to say that this
also reflects the conditions about 95-96 or even earlier if you like. But
there does not need to be this imperial persecution. Some local
persecutions were dangerous enough and could make some Christians abandon
their faith. What is important is whether these uncertain things should
be allowed to guide our interpretations on some details in the symbolic
universe of John. I still think that to use Nero or even Domitian (under
whom Asia by the way prospered significantly) as model for the satanic
trinity in Chapter 12-13 is really funny, but also disturbing to the
theological message. And the devil seems to be more dangerous than one of
these emperors. As H. Oberman has said concerning Luther in his _Luther.
Mensch Zwischen Gott und Teufel_: even if it be no part of our ontology
it certainly was for Luther - and, I add, for John. I do not reject
history as an utmost important part of our interpretative work, quite to
the contrary. But I do like to understand the _meaning_ or to make sense
of all the text as written communication (in its historical context)
before I allow these historical matters to determine the _reference_ of
this text. Off course, the interpretative work is far more complicated
than that, but if we are not going to end in arbitrariness then we have
to let the _meaning_ of the text guide or control our determining the
_reference_ of it. Else we are lost in our own pre-judgment
(Vorverstaendnis).
- --
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 1995 17:02:19 -0100
Subject: Re: genre of Revelation (sorry, a rather long note)
Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
> Thanks, Georg, for your careful reply. I'll respond to a few
> of your points.
>
> By socioliterary context, I mean that Revelation was produced in the
> midst of a wide array of Jewish and Hellenistic sources.
Yes, but this doesn't help us much. In order to use all this
information you have to show that Revelation is of one or another
type. And you have to show what connections did exist between
them. I think that Bauckham (in _The Climax of Prophecy) has shown
that it is unlikely that John knew e.g. 4. Ezra, but somehow there
were some traditions which John knew? Any comment on that?
> To say that
> Revelation is different from most or all of these is one thing. To
> claim that it is an "anti-apocalypse," as Art did, without
> considering the literary form and characteristic concerns of
> apocalypses, is a different claim.
Yes, I agre with that. I don't claim to be an anti-apocalypse my self.
> On the issue of how Revelation differs from Jewish apocalypses,
> you--like Art--cited theology. But genre is a literary term, not a
> theological one. (You did not respond to this point in my earlier
> post.) 2 and 3 Baruch and 4 Ezra all use the format of revelatory
> visions to address present evil in the light of heavenly and temporal
> redemption.
Genre is a literary term, yes. But, and I want to emphasize this,
I'm sure that David Hellholm among others has succesfully shown
that any definition of genre _must_ include _content_. I think
that is of extreme importance in the case of Revelation because
Revelation is different on exactly a number of theological topics.
I'm not sure whether this make Revelation non-apocalyptic but it
surely make sense to say that _if_ it is an apocalypse then it is
a Christian apocalypse. Hellholm also include (correctly, I'm
sure) _function_ as part of a definition of genre. And the
function of e.g. 2 and 3 Baruch and 4 Ezra _and_ Revelation is not
the same, I think, but admit that I still have some work to do on
this matter.
> That's apocalyptic, and Revelation participates in the
> same pattern. That Revelation shares some theological and pastoral
> concerns with the rest of the NT says nothing about its genre.
>
No, not necessarily. By the way, there is much more to say about what
constitutes the genre of apocalypses than what you wrote above. But I'm
sure you know that. So some of these concerns might in fact influence the
classification of, say, Revelation. Anyway, I still think that Revelation
is of a mixed genre, at least. It's not pure prophetic, not pure
apocalyptic and it's not only a "normal" antique letter.
> On the _hthos_ issue, all revelatory literature faces the problem of
> legitmation. (Look at Paul in Gal 1!) I meant to imply nothing
> negative about Revelation in saying that its generic markers served
> that purpose.
No, I didn't imply you to do that either. But it is not the only
function, and I don't think that all the generic markers serve this
purpose primarily, even if some of them do, as is certainly the case in
the prologue and epilogue. There is quite a difference from, say, Paul to
Revelation. I also want to point out that one of the ways the "other"
apocalypses legitimate themselves is by showing how the history has
proven the "prophecy" or "revelation" from of old and to the present time
of the real author. It's quite significant that this feature is absent
from Revelation.
Well, that's my two cents (which is cheap at the present time because the
USD is cheap in Europe! ;-) ).
- --
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #648
*****************************
** 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