[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #650
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 4 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 650
In this issue:
Re: Jerusalem/Babylon
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Cluster Analysis of NT Ch...
Hebrews
Subject: NT Documents
Re: Date of Revelation
Re: Revelation and the Canon ..
Re: Revelation and the Canon ..
Re: Date of Revelation
Truth in John 18.37-38
Re: genre of Revelation
Finally!
Re: young man
Re: Cluster Analysis of NT Chapters
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 08:09:12 -0100
Subject: Re: Jerusalem/Babylon
Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
> One more note on Revelation, with a couple points. (1) I am personally
> rather skeptical of any exhaustively elaborated interpretation of the
> book such that its imagery and poetry is reduced to philosophic prose (as
> it is said Bultmann's demythologization sought to reduce the gospel to
> the existentialist philosophy of Heidegger). Maybe this is a hard-headed,
> stiff-necked skeptical bent in me, but the book seems to me not to be so
> much a sequential representation of salvation history rushing to its
> climax so much as a view through a kaleidoscope at salvation history,
> such that, a turn of the cylinder (or, to shift the metaphor to that of
> Henry James, a turn of the screw) opens up a new vista wherein the same
> panorama of events of salvation history is set forth in altered images.
> To be sure, however, there is decisive movement to resolution at the end.
Yes, I partially agree. It is no sequential repr{sentation of salvation
history, but that doesn't mean that you shall not interpret it so that
there is litterary and theological coherence. That is _not_ to reduce it to
philosophic prose. Please, note that there _is_ a difference between the
gospel which really seeks to tell history in one or another form _and_
Revelation which is distinctly pictorial/symbolic.
> (2) Although I have said that I believe Babylon is indeed representative
> of Rome, I wouldn't fixate upon a single equation. It is Jerusalem as
> well, and it is Sodom, and it is Babylon itself. It seems to me that one
> recurrent image that is transformed in course is the CITY, the city as
> the focal gathering place of collective human self-worship and supreme
> idolatry, the city and civilization symbolized by the Tower of Babel from
> which Abraham fled toward a promised land, Jerusalem and Samaria, their
> promise and desecration, Rome as an ingathering symbol of human
> collective self-worship in the image of Caesar, but ultimately the city
> of salvation, the new Jerusalem, the City of God. I think there are other
> symbols that run throughout and undergo transformations also, the Woman,
> for instance. But I shall not extend this any further.
Just a pair of final notes: there is no transformation, perhaps if you
compare it to "Babylon" in the OT, but that is one of the interpretations
that I do question seriously. In Revelation Babylon falls, it doesn't
survive, and Jerusalem is coming down from heaven as something new. And
we can't do away with the fiery lake of burning sulphur. That would be a
reduction to philosophical prose ;-) But the city is certainly a very
important metaphor, which in its application can be said to include these
other metaphors you mention here. To me it is impossible to do away with
this search for coherent literary _meaning_ as the first step and to
identify the _reference_ as the second, or to put it in another way: to
find the rhetorical purpose.
- --
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 03:23:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
CC: kenneth@sybase.com
From: Timster132@aol.com
>The question here Tim is how do they go about doing
>this? I would argue that the Gospels do it through
>presenting a selective history of Jesus
>Their purpose has little to do, it seems to me, with
>their facticity, from a purely analytical point of view.
>From the point of view of a 1st cent. hostile reader,
>however, they had better contain historical fact.
>
>Ken
You are reading your own 20th century world-view and
modernist approach directly into the first century where it
doesn't belong. Just listen to what you have said: "presenting
a selective history...from a purely analytical point of view..they had better
contain historical fact".
That sound exactly like a 20th century person's critieria for
determining historicity, NOT a first century person. A first
century Jew would not have required such a definition. In fact, they
would have recognized literary genre current to them, (as in
midrash) where we ignorantly would miss the point.
Unless you recognize that as you come to Scripture you are
bringing your own opinions of your culture and century, you will
be practicing EISEGESIS and not exegesis-- and you will be misconstruing the
text.
In Christ,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 03:23:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Cluster Analysis of NT Ch...
to: b-greek@virginia.edu
cc: scc@reston.icl.com (Stephen Carlson)
from: timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
Stephen,
Thanks for your presenting your results from your cluster analysis. I
appreciate your intricate and specific groupings that go beyond simple
word-for-word vocabulary comparison. And your narrowing your parameters down
from books to chapters is an important critical step.
I think the 3 interesting clusters that you found seem to have import for
source critics.
For example, #1, the Johannine writings. One source theory is that
John's gospel is an expansion of a Gospel of Signs and Miracles. This
cluster makes the connection between the author of the Epistles and an
important part of the added material to the Gospel. Thus, the Epistle author
can now be identified with the Redactor of the Gospel of Signs who created
John's gospel. An important discovery.
For example #2: Infancy narratives and Acts. That Matthew and Luke are
clustered may be common vocabulary (ie, virgin, angels, etc) or may indicate
that Matthew's and Luke's Sources for their infancy narratives were from a
common pool.
That Luke's infancy narrative and Stephen's speech are connected
demonstrate that Luke had made use of pre-existing source material for both;
it also shows that Luke may have used a source for his infancy narrative
rather than created it himself. Interesting.
#3 Paul and the Pastorals. You could be right in that the connection
here in this clustering is from personally oriented material.
It may also mean that the author of the Pastorals also had a hand in
putting some closing touches on the Pauline corpus. That hebrews is included
in this group is not surprising, since Hebrews has several Pauline-style
"emmendations" within it (Heb 5:11-14; 12:12-13).
Anyway, these are a few things I thought of while reading your results.
I hope they can be of help.
BTW, I have seen some here in B-Greek as of late that are uncomfortable
with hypothesis and conjecture, who want to stick with what they call
"facts". However, it is clear to me, if not to them, that they are quick to
add their interpretation to the "facts" they present, and that they and I are
really doing the same thing, expect I admit my opinions up front, while they
fail to admit their active interpretation of data they present. In other
words, by my posing conjecture on sources, I am using your data from Cluster
Analysis, and applying it to Form and Source criticism--- just as others may
choose a church father to quote as their data and interpret what the father
meant. That they are reacting so much may imply that I am hitting pretty
close to the mark, as they say.
Keep up the good work, Stephen.
In Christ,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 03:23:38 -0400
Subject: Hebrews
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
From: Timster132@aol.com
Carl, you suggested....
>(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, you are a glutton for punishment! And an instigator, I might add!
From one dubious book to another! (sigh)
Well here goes. (I guess I am a sucker for punishment).
I did an intense study of Hebrews last year, particularly trying to
understand what that author means by "purification". I can ellaborate on this
later if you are interested.
Anyway, as regards to date, I believe I have come to the conclusion that
Hebrews was written in that period after Paul and before the Temple was
destroyed, ie, in the 60's.
Reasons:
1. If the Temple had already been destroyed, there would be little
reason to write an apology against the Temple Priesthood. (see 8:13-- it had
not yet disapeared)
2. Its soteriology is expressed as Christ's having "made purification"
for our sins, which would make MOST sense to believers who knew and who had
immediate experience with temple worship (9:13-14)
3. Sin for the author of Hebrews is turning back to the Temple priesthood
and sacrifices, which explains why when turning back there "no longer remains
a sacrifice for sin" in Christ, and it is "profaning/trampling on the blood
of Christ" (10:26-29).
4. The theology of Hebrews represents a transitional phase in theological
development in the NT. There is a definite Pauline influence in the theology
(Christ the exact imprint of God, Christ as mediator, Superiority of Christ)
yet a curious absence of the influence of the Gospel narratives/midrash
concerning who Jesus is. No sign of birth narratives here. For the author
of Hebrews, Christ is "a Son" from God who serves as God's Priest AND
Sacrifice. This is an evolution from Christ as "adopted Son" (Psalm 2) to
installed Priest. This does not seem as developed as the King, Moral
Teacher, Healer, Logos images of Christ found in the Gospels.
If my hypothesis is true, then Hebrews as a book gains a lot of
importance. Instead of being that mysterious book that was attributed to Paul
in the KJV, it becomes a pivotal book for understanding the development of
early Christianity, and a link between Paul and the Gospels.
As for the location of the writing, by what I have said above in #2, you
may have deduced that it is pre-70 Palestine.
Old literary analysis of LXX quotations in Hebrews giving the suggestion
that the book was therefore written in Egypt is a weak argument.
There you go, Carl. I hope others have fun with this. As Paul said, we
are counted as sheep to be slaughtered. :)
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 03:23:20 -0400
Subject: Subject: NT Documents
To: B-GREEK@virginia.edu,
cc: kenneth@sybase.com (Kenneth Litwak)
From: Timster132@aol.com (Tim Staker)
Ken, you re-posed your question...
> So again, why are the NT documents singled out
>this way?
I don't feel like I do this myself, and I think most
scholars aren't actively participating in totally discrediting
the NT in the way you mention. But, I am sure there
are some who do.
What you may be referring to could be a reaction against
fundamentalists and some evangelical scholars who believe
that inspiration of the Scriptures infers the impossibility of
any untruths in the Bible, not only theological, but historical,
geographical, scientific, etc.
The early liberals of the first decades of the 20th century
took an opposite stance, and were inconoclastic
and insensitive to the fundamentalists'
literalism, and loved (and perhaps were addicted to) the
shock value they could produce by discrediting Biblical
accounts.
But over the years, I think this attack has mellowed. And yet some
fundies still are refuting the old liberal attacks. One example I can think
of is InterVarsity Press Whole Bible Commentary.
Since the fundamentalists are still with us (it currently appears to
be an increasing and interreligious phenomenon). I guess some of the old
reactions against fundamentalism still continues. This echoing of old
arguments may be what you are referring to.
However, IMHO, I think the main stream is at the point (after
a century now) where it is generally recognized that the NT documents have
some degree of historical value, which is
increased by attestation in other sources.
BTW, one could affirm that the TV broadcast of Niel and Buzz
was real, if we had access to the flag, plaque and golf balls they
left on the lunar surface. And I think maybe the Russians might have a
record or two in their files that had their own tracking of Apollo 11 to the
moon. But that still leaves us with the option of believing. Isn't that the
point we have been arguing all along? Epistomologically speaking, how do we
believe what is true?
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 03:23:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
CC: gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk
From: Timster132@aol.com
Georg, you asked...
>Sorry, maybe I know too little about history, but what
>do you mean by "this Nostradamizing of apocalyptic
>literature"?
Every generation has had a group that was convinced that they were
living in the last days, and read their own current events into
the apocalyptic passages of the Bible, and has used these verses to proove
that they were right.
Especially those who read the Scriptures literally, would read where
Paul (et al) declares that the last days are here, and the readers naively
assume Paul is talking to them. There is a lot of evidence that this
happened throughout church history-- some highlights: Montanism in early
church history; Pope Urban 2 after the close of the 1st millenium AD;
Russellites in the 19th Century; and many, many others.
One interesting fellow in America, Hal Lindsey, just rewrites his books
about every decade. the the 70's he wrote _The Late Great Planet Earth_,
showing that the world would end soon as Commununist Russia (=Gog of Ezekiel)
would invade Israel.
In the 80's he revised his book to keep up with current events, and
renamed it _Planet Earth 198?_. Now that Comunism in Russia has fallen, he
has had to change his book again, and has recently come out with a book with
"2000" in the title.
What I mean by Nostradamizing of Apocalyptic literature, is how some
folk (like Hal Lindsay) will read the apocalyptic passages of Revelation,
Ezekiel, Daniel, etc. in the very same way people read the prophecies of
Nostradamus. To be specific, as they read Nostradamus, they try to fit
modern history into the mysterious quatrains. And in reading Revelation,
they do the same thing-- trying to fit modern history and current events into
the apocalyptic symbols they find there.
This is a mistake. It fails to understand the nature of apocalyptic
literature in the Scriptures, that uses symbols to speak of current events of
the author and his immediate audience, reminding them that God will win over
evil in the near future, so they are to hold onto hope and perservere. (My
apologies to those apocalyptic experts for oversimplifying here).
A more informed interpretation (ie, aware of the genre of apocalyptic
lit) of Revelation avoids this Nostradamus approach to interpretation, and
focuses on an historical interpretation of the book, in order to bring its
meaning to us today.
What I am emphatically saying is that it is inappopriate to the genre of
NT apocalyptic lit. to read it as one would read Nostradamus. It is a
distortion of the Biblical message. And it often is used to create an
atmosphere of anxiety and fear, rather than encouraging people to put their
trust in God because of God's love and compassion we find in Christ.
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 03:48:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Revelation and the Canon ..
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
CC: lswain@wln.com
From: Timster132@aol.com
Larry, you are "preaching to the choir" here,
that is, I don't disagreewith anything you have said
in your response. You are apparantly responding
to my last note on "RE: Revelation and the Canon"
which was an brief (and unfortunately generalized)
explanation of a few things I said earlier in the
thread.
But let me make a brief response to clarify myself.
First of all, I think it is somewhat of a MYSTERY
as to how the canon was created. In some ways it
is like a detective story with clues left behind.
Yes we have "primary sources", and yet these
are mostly clues to how the process of canonization
took place. Some are earlier, some are later, and
there is some dispute of the value of the various primary
sources as to their accuracy.
Other clues include Early father's usage of Scripture, and
later material like Gaius and Proclus' debate and Eusebius'
history.
Then there are other clues, such as "motives" the
church MIGHT have had in choosing certain books, and the
apostolicity issue is one, although a secondary issue,
for sure (which I totally agree with you). And NOTE: I DID
use the word "possibility" to connote a conjecture, rather
than equating my hypothesis with primary sources.
Since there remains some mystery about the
canonical process, I think it is appropriate to put forth
informed hypothesis. Your remark that such a hypothesis
was a....
>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
may be understandable in that you were responding
to my abreviated comments explaining earlier remarks I made
in the thread. I think the fact that we DON'T have enough
primary sources that explain the canonical process lends us
to making hypothesis and conjecture that can be helpful to
some degree in reconstructing early church practice.
I would assume you would agree with this, but if you
don't, please correct me. You yourself make comjectures:
e.g., you say that the names of the NT books were "fixed
probably by the last decade of the first century-so within 20
years of their writing" --- and you proceed then to use this
conjecture to further your argument.
And such discussion is not a waste of bandwidth, but a
part of our common search for truth.
Anyway, like I said, you were responding to my brief
explanation of earlier arguments that included even some of
which you said in your response, which I appreciated.
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 03:48:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Revelation and the Canon ..
TO: kenneth@sybase.com
TO: lswain@wln.com
CC: b-greek@virginia.edu
From: Timster132@aol.com
Larry, you are "preaching to the choir" here,
that is, I don't disagreewith anything you have said
in your response. You are apparantly responding
to my last note on "RE: Revelation and the Canon"
which was an brief (and unfortunately generalized)
explanation of a few things I said earlier in the
thread.
But let me make a brief response to clarify myself.
First of all, I think it is somewhat of a MYSTERY
as to how the canon was created. In some ways it
is like a detective story with clues left behind.
Yes we have "primary sources", and yet these
are mostly clues to how the process of canonization
took place. Some are earlier, some are later, and
there is some dispute of the value of the various primary
sources as to their accuracy.
Other clues include Early father's usage of Scripture, and
later material like Gaius and Proclus' debate and Eusebius'
history.
Then there are other clues, such as "motives" the
church MIGHT have had in choosing certain books, and the
apostolicity issue is one, although a secondary issue,
for sure (which I totally agree with you). And NOTE: I DID
use the word "possibility" to connote a conjecture, rather
than equating my hypothesis with primary sources.
Since there remains some mystery about the
canonical process, I think it is appropriate to put forth
informed hypothesis. Your remark that such a hypothesis
was a....
>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
may be understandable in that you were responding
to my abreviated comments explaining earlier remarks I made
in the thread. I think the fact that we DON'T have enough
primary sources that explain the canonical process lends us
to making hypothesis and conjecture that can be helpful to
some degree in reconstructing early church practice.
I would assume you would agree with this, but if you
don't, please correct me. You yourself make comjectures:
e.g., you say that the names of the NT books were "fixed
probably by the last decade of the first century-so within 20
years of their writing" --- and you proceed then to use this
conjecture to further your argument.
And such discussion is not a waste of bandwidth, but a
part of our common search for truth.
Anyway, like I said, you were responding to my brief
explanation of earlier arguments that included even some of
which you said in your response, which I appreciated.
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 13:29:22 -0100
Subject: Re: Date of Revelation
Timster132@aol.com wrote:
> TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
> CC: gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk
> From: Timster132@aol.com
>
> Georg, you asked...
> >Sorry, maybe I know too little about history, but what
> >do you mean by "this Nostradamizing of apocalyptic
> >literature"?
>
> What I mean by Nostradamizing of Apocalyptic literature, is how some
> folk (like Hal Lindsay) will read the apocalyptic passages of Revelation,
> Ezekiel, Daniel, etc. in the very same way people read the prophecies of
> Nostradamus.
> A more informed interpretation (ie, aware of the genre of apocalyptic
> lit) of Revelation avoids this Nostradamus approach to interpretation, and
> focuses on an historical interpretation of the book, in order to bring its
> meaning to us today.
> What I am emphatically saying is that it is inappopriate to the genre of
> NT apocalyptic lit. to read it as one would read Nostradamus. It is a
> distortion of the Biblical message. And it often is used to create an
> atmosphere of anxiety and fear, rather than encouraging people to put their
> trust in God because of God's love and compassion we find in Christ.
OK. I wasn't that ignorant of history (of interpretation), I see.
But I still wonder what bearing that has on my interpretation of
Revelation. If you imply that I'm Nostradamizing because I hold
Revelation as well as the rest of the NT to support an 'already -
not yet' eschatology _and_ by extension of this consider
Revelation to have some importance for _us today_, then I'll
confess my 'Nostradamizing', but then I must define this word in
quite another way. The purpose of Revelation is maybe somewhat
more complicated than you seem to imply above but perhaps we could
resume that discussion somewhat later.
- --
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: RlMackie@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 09:14:26 -0400
Subject: Truth in John 18.37-38
On April 4, Tim Staker wrote:
"Epistomologically speaking, how do we believe what is true?"
Immediately Pilate's question TI ESTIN ALHTHEIA (John 18:38) came to my mind.
From the thread on Revelation and the canon to this point it seems clear
that participants in this list will continue to disagree no matter how cogent
(in the mind of the writer) the arguments advanced for a particular view.
Pilate asked an unanswerable question. However, if he had phrased it TIS
ESTIN ALHTHEIA, the answer would have been right in front of him in the
person of the one who said PAS O WN EK THS ALHTHEIAS AKOUEI MOU THS PHWNHS.
The b-greek list items I have read so far lead me to believe we can all
agree that Jesus embodies the truth, and what we call "the canon" in some
measure or other reveals the truth about Jesus by means of human language.
Though general discourses on source criticism do have implications for
textual selection and do help me discern the presuppositions of participants
in this list, discussions of particular linguistic issues such as PISTIS
IHSOU would help this parish pastor improve his facility in Biblical Greek.
If the accredited Greek scholars among us could get back to that, I would go
back to lurking and absorbing your wisdom.
Roger L. Mackie EIKEINON DEI AUXANEIN
301 Sherman PO Box 36 EME DE ELATTOUSTHAI
Good Thunder MN 56037-0036
Phone: (507) 278-3169
------------------------------
From: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 09:52:48 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: genre of Revelation
Georg responded:
>>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?<<
I don't think of genre in terms of static forms. I, too, highly
doubt that John knew 4 Ezra. I do find it significant that Rev
shares both content and devices with many other texts, including 4
Ezra, most of which we call apocalypses. I also believe that there
was a sort of non-literary apocalyptic tradition in both early
Judaism and Xity, as witnessed by 2 Cor 12 and several of Jesus'
revelatory experiences (see Christopher Rowland, _The Open Heaven_
and David Aune, _Prophecy in Early Xity and the Ancient
Mediterranean_).
>>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.<<
I said in my first post that Revelation differs from Jewish
apocalypses in being a Christian apocalypse. And I doubt it shares
the overwhelming concern with obedience to the law or the Temple's
destruction as do the three apocalypses above. What is does share
are (among other things): (a) revelatory experience of heavenly
mysteries and end-time events; (b) pessimistic view of present
circumstances; (c) admonition to heightened community discipline; (d)
allusion to ancient mythological motifs; (e) a vision of divinely
realized resolution; and (f) angelic mediation. These are pretty
strong parallels, and are among the markers of apocalypses.
>>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.<<
I agree that Revelation mixes genres. I do believe apocalypse is the
most prominent.
>>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.<<
Here's why I think _hthos_ is so crucial. I view Rev 1 (where the
generic clues are most clear) as a sort of proem to the book. IN it
John has to build his relationship to his audience (_hthos_) and
prepare the audience for what is to come. Now, we know from chs. 2,
3, & 22 that John expected resistance to his message. As ancient
rhetoricians emphasized, the beginning of a speech is the place to
deal with anticipated negative dispositions and to establish one's
own credibility. John did have a credibility problem, at least among
some of the churches, and he uses generic clues as one of the means
to address the issue.
Of course, I might have a vested interest, since my dissertation is
on _hthos_ in Revelation :-)!
*******************************
Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University
carey@library.vanderbilt.edu
------------------------------
From: RoyRM@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 10:56:05 -0400
Subject: Finally!
>Though general discourses on source criticism do have implications
>for textual selection and do help me discern the presuppositions of
>participants in this list, discussions of particular linguistic issues
>such as PISTIS IHSOU would help this parish pastor improve his
>facility in Biblical Greek. If the accredited Greek scholars among
>us could get back to that, I would go back to lurking and absorbing
>your wisdom.
I too tire over what has degenerated--especially in the last three days--to
sanctified name calling. I subscribe to this list in order to augment my
understanding of Greek. If I wanted to debate the merits of my
presuppositions with yours--of course, mine are formed with an open mind
:)--I would think I would subscribe to a differnet list.
I hate to sound sharp, especially when I have come to value the insights of
many of you concerning the language, but I'm starting to see us wander far
from the trail and I was hoping we could stick to it maybe just a little
better.
Roy R. Millhouse
RoyRM@aol.com
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <DGOWLER@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 10:32:39 EST
Subject: Re: young man
Rick Strelan wrote:
Being that time of the year, I was rereading Mark 14 and
thinking again about the strange young man of 14:51-52. . . .
[Re] the man whose ear was cut off was in fact a priest who was
rendered unclean by the maiming. Now, is it possible that the
young man (neaniskos) is also a servant of a priest, if not some
kind of priest himself? Linen was worn by priests (Lev 6:10;
16:4,32 for example) . . . . Is this episode some kind of
exposure of the "men of the cloth"?? Is it coincidental that
jesus is then immediately taken to the high priest and charged
with being unclean by blaspheming (14:53ff)?
Interesting. I am one of those who insists that we must
search diligently for for social and cultural contexts implicit
in these texts, but the text of Mark itself seems to portray the
situation differently, albeit not unambiguously.
Mark portrays the leaders as looking for a way to arrest
Jesus (and kill him) in Mark as early as 3:6, and this continues
throughout Mark (cf. 14:1-2) -- hence there are several reasons
(in Mark) for Jesus being "unclean" *and* for the leadership
wanting to kill him. The connection to the Temple is the
dominant reason given, however, toward the end of the story (cf.
14:58 and 15:29).
"Blasphemy" was a major accusation from the very beginning as
well (e.g., 2:7). The "blasphemy" accusation at the Markan trial,
however, isn't mentioned until Jesus gives his "Son of man . . .
coming with the clouds of heaven" answer -- so the connection
you mention doesn't seem to be there.
So, in brief, I find this interesting proposal a bit of a
reach and perhaps a bit of parallelomania (in Sandmel's sense).
In addition to the initial theories about the young man that
you mentioned earlier in your note, you may wish to look at the
critical note by Alan Culpepper entitled, "Mark 10:50: Why
mention the Garment?" It is found in _JBL_ (around 1982, I
believe). He gives an interesting proposal concerning the
literary references to "garments" in Mark, including the young man
in Mark 14:51-52.
Best wishes,
David
********************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 1995 10:07:47 CST
Subject: Re: Cluster Analysis of NT Chapters
On Mon, 3 Apr 95, Stephen Carlson wrote:
>I have finished my own stylometric analysis of the New Testament canon,
>but this time I split each book into its chapters and ran a cluster
>analysis on them.
Stephen--
I would be interested in seeing how the vocabulary in 1 Corinthians clusters
since my own study on grammatical features in that book show the following
four distinctions.
Response to Oral Reports Response to the Corinthians' Letter
|
Non-Peak 1-6, 11 | 7-10, 16
- ----------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Peak 15 | 12-14
|
- --Bruce
********************************************************************************
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 #650
*****************************
** 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