[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #654
b-greek-digest Friday, 7 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 654
In this issue:
Re: MYSTERY
B-GREEK
Hebrews 13.20
Re: genre of Revelation
Re: Future Middle Deponents
Re:Canon
Re: 1 Cor. 11:4-15
suggestions
Sunday is the Mark of the Beast!
Nero and the Jews
Ephesians use of "mystery"
Re: 1 Cor. 11:4-15
Re: Sunday is the Mark of the Beast!
Re: Ephesians use of "mystery"
Re: Future Middle Deponents
Re: Christian listservers
1 Cor 11, exousia, and "veils"(?)
Re: Truth in John...
NT Documents
Re: Hebrews
Re: Revelation and the Canon ...
Re:Canon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Georg Stubkjaer Adamsen <gsadamsn@login.dknet.dk>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 1995 07:50:22 -0100
Subject: Re: MYSTERY
Pete Cepuch <pcepuch@diag1.iac.honeywell.com> wrote:
> I would be interested to hear any opinions from the list concerning Paul's
> use of the word musterion(mystery). His use of h oikonomia tou musteriou in
> Eph. 3:9 would seem to indicate a particular -house-law- or economy or
> administration of this mystery or secret which is being brought to light
> -photisai-which has been hidden away from the ages in God etc.
I've lost my memory on this issue but once upon a time I read
something about it. Try Chris Caragounis: _The Ephesian _Mysterion_.
Meaning and Content._ (Coniectanea Biblica, NT, 8) Lund, 1977. It's
161 pages + bibliography and indexes.
- --
Georg S. Adamsen, Denmark
------------------------------
From: "Richard R. Dupont" <rdupont@ozarks.sgcl.lib.mo.us>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 01:20:49 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: B-GREEK
SUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
------------------------------
From: RlMackie@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 08:11:49 -0400
Subject: Hebrews 13.20
Thank you for your polite and concise answers to my question. They have
indeed helped me remember grammar I once knew.
Roger L. Mackie EKEINON DEI AUXANEIN
301 Sherman PO Box 36 EME DE ELATTOUSQAI
Good Thunder MN 56037-0036
(507) 278-3169 e-mail: rlmackie@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Greg Carey <CAREY@library.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 1995 08:48:23 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: genre of Revelation
Pat Tiller corrected my statement on providence as it occurs in
Revelation and 1 Enoch. And Pat is correct--apocalyptic literature
does not _simply_ represent God's control over history as absolute.
Instead, both the Animal Apocalypse and Revelation regard certain
_ultimate_ aspects of history to be divinely appointed. God's
control over them is absolute. Thanks for the correction.
Apocalyptic versions of providence are a complex mixture of
determinism and human accountability. But there is a significant
degree of consistency among them. I am concerned that some person's
are so invested in Revelation's uniqueness as to neglect literary
parallels which may shed light on it. The point I meant to make is
that I do not see how Revelation presents God's control over history
in a way that is radically different from other apocalyptic
literature.
BTW, Pat, off the list, what field are you working in?
*******************************
Greg Carey
Graduate Department of Religion
Vanderbilt University
carey@library.vanderbilt.edu
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 09:33:35 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Future Middle Deponents
> From a linguistic point of view, we call it the process of
> simplification. Every language over a period of time simplifies itself in
> phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. Future middles changing over
> to active forms were common but a few did not get switched over. In Hebrew
> class we had a phrase for this "yotsay main ha'clal" - the exception to the
> rule!
> The amount of simplification that took place with koine greek from
> classical greek was so "revolutionary" that Atticism made a short comeback.
> It was short lived due to the number of Greek speakers from Asia Minor down
> to North Africa, and the use of the language for business purposes.
This seems along the right track, but it can't be the whole story,
since languages also become more complex over time in certain areas,
tense/aspect forms included. Consider, for example, the English
construction 'BE going to verb', which developed into a future form in the
presence of the auxiliary 'will Verb' future.
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: William Raines <wraines@emmental.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 95 16:31:58 GMT
Subject: Re:Canon
On 2 April Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com> wrote
>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.
I think Larry is wrong here, or at least that he oversimplifies.
Apostolic authorship is a necessary condition for a writing to become
canonical and was usually the first test to be applied to any Christian
writing. Books become scripture because of who wrote them, not what they
are in themselves. This is not to say that the question of content (the
rule of faith) was unimportant, but that it arises secondarily after the
question of apostolic attribution. Thus, the writer of the Muratorian
fragment excludes Hermas from his canon, not because he thinks the work
dubious or heretical, not because it violates the rule of faith, but
because he knows that its author was not an apostle. And this criterion
works both ways - Philemon, to take the least controversial example,
surely became canonical because Paul wrote it and for no other reason.
The particular incident Larry refers to in this paragraph would seem to
illustrate the point nicely [ Eusebius, H.E. VI.12.3-6]. Serapion, Bishop
of Antioch circa 200 CE, writes to the church at Rhossus. He had
previously given permission for this congregation to use in their
services a "Gospel of Peter", though he had not read it himself and
did not know what was in it. He has now discovered that the work is
in fact docetic, and correspondingly withdraws his permission. Isn't
it striking that Serapion should at first have been content with the
name, Peter, and only much later enquired into the substance?
It's true that "in the end" it's the rule of faith that matters, but
"in the beginning" it's putative apostolic authorship that really
counts.
I have some theories about why this should be so, but I'll save those
for another post if anyone is interested.
Bill
- --
The Revd. William Raines || Tel: 061-224 1310
197 Old Hall Lane || Email:
Manchester M14 6HJ || wraines@emmental.demon.co.uk
United Kingdom || wraines@cix.compulink.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 95 09:25:18 PDT
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 11:4-15
Does Paul's injunction that a man should pray with his head ('kephalis')
> uncovered and a woman with her's covered in 1 Cor. 11:4-15 refer to their
> face? And is this a reference to a veil? Are there any published sources
> that deal with the history of Jewish women covering their faces during prayer?
>
> Mark Staker
>
I would like to make a few points in response to Mark Staker's
question. First, it should be pointed out that there is disagreement
as to whether Paul is referring to a veil or long hair and no easy way
to decide. There is no evidence of a practice in Corinth at this time
regarding hair or veils that Paul would be writing against, in spite
of some maintaining that prostitutes in Corinth went without veils.
There is no evidence for this at this time. In fact, from the reading
I've done, there seems to be no consistent practice in the Med at that
time regarding hair length.
Furthermore, I would argue, citing the arguments made by Alan Padgett
in JSNT (1984 I think) and Tyndale Bulletin (1994:2 I believe) that
in fact Paul is NOT arguing for women to be veiled or wear long hair, but
is arguing the exact opposite. Paul is arguing basically that women
have authority concerning their own physical head (see parallel
language in Revelation of exousia, and Mark 2:10) to do as they wish,
that nature (and here I think phusis clearly does NOT mean custom but
is meant in the way we mean nature) doesn't say anything about hair
length (taking this as a question: Nature does not teach this, does it?
a usage comparable to other examples of negative particles in 1 Cor
- -- that's my own research, not Padgett's)k and finally Paul concludes
that if anyone wants to be contentious about it, the churches have no
custom on the matter of veils/hair length so none should be imposed.
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
P.S.,
I'm cross-posting this to b-greek because I think it would be of
interest over there.
------------------------------
From: "Pamela M. Hood" <hoodp@cruzio.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 95 10:02:36 PDT
Subject: suggestions
Greetings,
I'm new to the list and was wondering if folks could help with the
following:
(1) I am preparing for a Spring semester 1996 class - History of Christian
Thought I (I'd like to go up to the schism of 1054) - for a state university
here in Californina. I need suggestions for good, reasonably priced texts
that you've used in the past.
(2) I'd like to join an Ancient Philosophy list and/or a Classics list. Can
someone send me listserv addresses for lists they enjoy?
Thanks in advance for the help.
Pam Hood
PhD student in Philosophy
Claremont Graduate School
hoodp@cgs.edu or hoodp@cruzio.com
- --
------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 13:29:01 -0400
Subject: Sunday is the Mark of the Beast!
<<I tried *bible* but all
>that was going on there was the deciphering of Revelation: How the Pope
>and Saddam Hussein are the Beast and Antichrist; and Why All WHo Worship
>on Sunday are Damned.>>
Should I start one of these threads for you? Sunday as the mark of the beast
comes to mind. ; - ) BTW it is even worse now. I bet you did not knowthat
blacks are really the beast of the field, and the jews control the world, anf
the NIV is satanic. I am thinking about dropping Bible.
Dennis
------------------------------
From: DDDJ@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 13:29:11 -0400
Subject: Nero and the Jews
<<This makes Jews and Romans sound
chummy, which they hardly were at least in Palestine>>
There are Jews and then there are Jews. Nero almost married a Herod's sister.
His mistress later was Jewish.
Dennis
------------------------------
From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 95 13:16:00 CDT
Subject: Ephesians use of "mystery"
It seems to me that Paul's use of "mystery" is somewhat clarified when
you consider the practical problem he faces. Pagan religion was eclectic and
non-exclusive. If it was good to be an initiate into the Eleusinian
mysteries, it was even better to be an initiate into the Orphic mysteries as
well. How does Paul convince people to be exclusively Christian, to do
something other than simply add Christ to the pantheon? Partly, I think by
presenting Christianity as the mystery religion par excellence. But he does
this, I think, tongue in cheek.
Mystery relgions for the most part had in common the following:
1. A secret legend known only to initiates, often involving creation, but
even more frequently involving the sufferings and triumph of a god/goddess.
2. Membership in an elect group.
3. A purifying ritual usually accompanied by some sort of mystical
vision/experience.
4. A promise of victory over death.
Paul shows how Christianity offers all of these things. But while he
talks of them as "mysteries," he does what no follower of a mystery religion
would dare do, reveal the secrets openly.
------------------------------
From: "Marmorstein, Art" <marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 95 14:07:00 CDT
Subject: Re: 1 Cor. 11:4-15
I'll continue my record of wrong-headed/off-the-wall contributions to this
list by suggesting that pagan (rather than Jewish) custom provides the best
background for interpreting this passage.
Plutarch's "Moralia" contains an interesting passage on the covering of the
head in worship (Roman Questions 10-14). Plutarch asks why men uncover their
heads when meeting a distinguished man, but uncover when worshipping the
gods. He also asks why men's heads remain uncovered when praying to "Saturn"
and "honor." He goes on to speculate of reasons women and men have opposite
customs when regard to the covering of the head (and to length of hair) when
mourning.
I think the whole question of whether or not to cover the head in worship
stems from the obvious confusion gentile Christians would have had about the
proper way to worship Jehovah. Do you cover your head when you worship Him
as you do with most gods? Or do you uncover, as you do with Saturn, the god
of truth?
It may also be of some help to know that, when Roman women got married, they
typically war a toga that covered the head, while single women wore a garment
that did not. What would it mean, then, for a married woman to uncover her
head? Was it something like taking off a wedding ring? Was this why Paul
objects to the practice? Did Corinth follow Roman custom in regard to
women's dress?
Anyone on the list want to correct my latest ravings? Thanks in advance.
Art Marmorstein
marmorsa@wolf.northern.edu
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 14:24:18 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Sunday is the Mark of the Beast!
On Fri, 7 Apr 1995 DDDJ@aol.com wrote:
> Should I start one of these threads for you? Sunday as the mark of the beast
> comes to mind. ; - ) BTW it is even worse now. I bet you did not knowthat
> blacks are really the beast of the field, and the jews control the world, anf
> the NIV is satanic. I am thinking about dropping Bible.
Thanks, but could we just stick with the gospel of Mark? (and the other
26 books, as well, of course)?
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: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 14:30:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Ephesians use of "mystery"
On Fri, 7 Apr 1995, Marmorstein, Art wrote:
> ... If it was good to be an initiate into the Eleusinian
> mysteries, it was even better to be an initiate into the Orphic mysteries as
> well. ...
At some time this may have been true about the Orphic mysteries, but
unfortunately our best knowledge of them is extremely late in antiquity.
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: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 16:24:19 +0500
Subject: Re: Future Middle Deponents
Carl responded:
My question, however, is really
>with reference to an even earlier period in the language: why is it that
>verbs that are REGULARLY active in the present tense (e.g. AKOUW)
>REGULARLY middle in the future tense (AKOUSOMAI) with no apparent change
>in ASPECT. And I'm not really satified that it is the case that ALL verbs
>originally were REGULARLY middle in the future; indeed I'm highly skeptical.
I didn't mean to imply that ALL verbs originally were regularly
middle in the future, but I stated as a general rule, many of the middle
expressions switched over to future active forms. I think the Attic
expressed a preference for a present active to change to a future deponent.
Koine modified that. You could say it was not only a case of simplification
but a process of generalization. Why some switched over and others didn't
is hard to surmise, apart from what I said in the last response.
Your deduction concerning intransitive verbs taking the middle could
be valid. Moulton tends to agree with such a thought. A.T. Robertson does not.
Kent A. Sutorius
Maryland Bible College and Seminary
kassutor@clark.net
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 1995 14:31:15 CST
Subject: Re: Christian listservers
I wrote:
>Apparently the address of Greg Slade (camsock@xc.org) that I posted yesterday
>for a list of Christian listservers is incorrect. I have written our system
>manager here who provided me with the address for a clarification/correction.
>I will post the correct address when I get it. In the meantime, save yourself
>a message from a mail-daemon and don't write Greg for a copy of his list.
Glenn Wooden wrote:
>Try gslade@cyberstore.ca
My systems manager tells me that the organizational address for Greg Slade is
camsoc@xc.org without the k. The personal address that Glenn sent may work
too. The list is also available on the gopher and ftp systems on
bible.acu.edu. For ftp, login on as anonymous and go to the \technology\ctt
subdirectory. Get the file append-b.txt. It has more than you ever want to
know about Christian groups on the internet.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 1995 16:39:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 1 Cor 11, exousia, and "veils"(?)
One of the most helpful pieces on this issue is the article by
Cynthia Thompson, "Hairstyles, Head-coverings, and St. Paul--
Portraits from Roman Corinth" in Biblical Archaeologist, June 1988.
(This article influenced the NRSV translators, God be thanked!)
The photographs are unusually helpful.
A note on the "balcony" for women, so-called, in synagogues:
Bernadette Brooten's work, about 15 years ago, blew this imaginary
piece of architecture back into fantasyland, whence it came.
(She moved, a year or so ago, from the faculty at Harvard to Brandeis,
where she holds the chair Krister Stendahl graced for a few years
after retiring from Stockholm.)
Edward Hobbs
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 17:30:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Truth in John...
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
From: Timster132@aol.com
RIMackie (Roger) stated on 4/4/95....
>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 would remind you the about what Biblical Greek Mailing List is for. As
the list says.....
B-GREEK is an electronic conference designed to foster
communication concerning the scholarly study of the Greek
Bible. Anyone interested in New Testament Studies is invited
to subscribe, but the list will assume at least a working
knowledge of Biblical Greek. Those interested in learning
to study the Bible more personally and less exclusively
academic should join the BIBLE list
Questions about Greek itself are indeed part of the list, and there are
threads concerning this most all the time. However, the List is "a scholarly
study of the Greek Bible", (not just a study of Greek in the Bible) and that
includes the other areas that you mentioned that you would rather not read
about.
My discussion with Ken (a long standing argument now) deals with the
historicity of the gospels, which involves, as you well know, discussion of
the Greek text, patristics, source criticism, etc, including (most appropriate
ly) epistimology.
As a fellow pastor, I understanding your need about focusing on the
meaning of texts for the purpose of interpreting them to the congregation.
For me, the other areas also have a bearing on interpretation, and I find
that the discussion on B-Greek to be helpful.
In Christ,
Tim Staker --Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 17:30:31 -0400
Subject: NT Documents
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
cc:kenneth@sybase.com
From: Timster132@aol.com
Ken, you asked on 4/4/95...
> Just how did these people read documnents and what
>did they expect given types of documents to contain?
>We may not need to answer this to parse Greek verbs,
>but if we are going to go much beyond syntax, it seems
>to me we need to answer this question in a farily
>authoritative way, by which I mean with more certainty
>than what I think or someone else thinks, like something
>more empirical from that period.
Discerning how ancient folk read their documents is what
we have been discussing as we all have been discussing genre, apocalypticism
and, to some degree, patristics.
>I sincerely doubt that a Gentile reader in Ephesus is going to >recognize
midrash in [Mark]'s Gospel,
That's how the Gentile believers misunderstood the midrash elements in
Mark's gospel as literal history, and thus the problem.
We make the same mistake unless we ask who was the original audience of a
book and how might they have understood it.
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 17:30:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Hebrews
TO: B-Greek@virginia.edu
CC: 458507@AcadVM1.UOttawa.CA
From: Timster132@aol.com
Alan, thank you very much for your response to my posting on Hebrews. Your
comments were thoughtful and appropriate, as well as helpful.
You said on 4/4/95...
>Why do you believe that Hebrews is "an apology against the >Temple
Priesthood"? All references in Heb. to the location of the >cult involve the
Tabernacle (_skhnh_) and the author's description of >the cultus is seemingly
based on the OT alone -- it is entirely >possible that he knew little or
nothing of the Jerusalem temple.
I believe that the author of Hebrews did this intentionally, calling
the Temple SKHNH (Tent/Tabernacle), to infer its _Temporary_ nature. The
Temple authorities and adherents reguarded the Temple as eternal, and its
continued observance of sacrifices essential.
>It could just as easily make sense to anyone who was familiar with
>the OT. Contemporary Christians continue to use sacrificial
>language without any immediate experience of the Jerusalem >temple.
This is true. However, my statement was that sacrificial language would
make MOST sense to someone who was familiar with or actally had practiced
sacrificial worship, and in the context of Hebrews, someone who had
experienced sacrificial worship at the Temple.
Folks in my church enjoy singing "What can wash away my sins? Nothing but
the blood of Jesus". But when I have asked some of them "How does blood take
away sin?" They are hard pressed to find an answer.
Since the experience of sacrificing animals is far from common in our
day, I would argue that sacrificial atonement is not an easy concept for us to
grasp. Certainly a first century person would better understand and a
person who had sacrificed at the Temple would understand BEST what the
Hebrews writer was saying.
It seems to me that the author of Hebrews is actually arguing against the
idea that blood sacrifices take away sin. Heb 9:22 states the priests'
position for the need of continuing sacrificing at the Temple: "Under the
_Law_.... without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins"
[kata ton nomon kai aimatekxusias ou ginetai aphesis].
Then, in 10:11 he says that "such sacrifices can NEVER [oudepote dunantai]
take away sins." He goes on to say in the rest of ch 10 that as Christ
ascended, God made a covenant based on forgiveness ("Where there is
forgiveness of these, there is no longer any need to make a sin offering"
10:18).
In other words, blood doesn't literally take away sin-- it is God who
takes away sin who convenants to forgive us and chooses to remember our sins
no more (10:17). Where the blood of Jesus comes in, is that his death in
itself becomes a cartharsis for us. Our _consciences_ are purified from evil
by his blood/death (10:22). This is how Christ makes purification
(katharismon) for our sin (1:3).
Jesus' death awakens our conscience [as does the Suffering Servant (Is
52:14-53:1)]. We see the evil done to him and our own evil; at the same time
his death reminds us of his message that God is forgiving. His death becomes
a cathartic experience for us.
Alan, you further noted...
>I would hate to limit "sin" in Hebrews to any one item, but isn't
>"faithlessness / unbelief" the besetting sin the author underlines
>again and again in his argument?
Yes. Again you are correct. The general term the author uses is
faithlessness/ unbelief. This is sin for the author. I was perhaps being
too narrow in making my definition. The concrete example of this sin that
the author addresses in his letter is the defections back to the Temple
worship with its sacrifices.
>I'm not sure why "King, Moral Teacher, Healer [and] Logos images >of Christ"
must necessarily be more "developed" than the priestly
>Christology of Hebrews.
I really should have said "Christ as priest" is a part of the developing
Christology found in the NT, rather than to suggest that Hebrews' image "does
not seem as developed". The image of Christ as Priest in Hebrews is actually
a very highly developed symbol in the text.
As a development in NT theological thought, Hebrews stands between Paul
and the Gospels.
Other than Christ as Priest, there is the usage of "a Son" in the letter
of Hebrews which later develops into "_the_ Son" in Mark and John, and
possibly into "The Son of Man" idiom found in Matthew.
The tradition of Christ as Priest underlies the Gospels' reference to the
enigmatic splitting of the Temple curtain from top to bottom immediately
after Jesus died. (Mt 27:51; Lk 23:45).
There is definitely some intercanonical dialogue going on here, if not
some developmental stages of Christology.
Thanks again, Alan for your comments. Anyone else?
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 17:30:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Revelation and the Canon ...
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
CC: lswain@wln.com
From: Timster132@aol.com
Larry, you said on 4/4/95...
>First, my statements regarding the date of the gospel
>titles were not conjecture in the same fashion that
>yours were. In regard to the gospel titles there is
> textual and literary evidence which suggests the
>conclusion
Actually, I am very familiar with the textual evidence (that is, the mss)
for gospel titles and the dates for these, especially the lengthy
ascriptions, which aren't very early. As for literary evidence, it has been
shown that traditions the church fathers recount are not always reliable.
(Eusebius was far from inerrant).
So you are doing the same type of conjecture as I am (although making
use of different evidence) . You are looking to later material and
conjecturing that they are based upon earlier possible examples. And I am
looking to common, concurrent and real practices of writers of the period
and conjecturing that some NT writers did the same.
Although you disagree, I feel in this case the weight of concurrent
literary practice and that of late mss evidence/patristic traditions are
about the same. But after all is said and done it is still conjecture, not so
mething which has been proved.
That John the Revelator and John the Gospel writer weren't the same
person is generally agreed today by critical scholars. There wasn't such a
concensus in the third and even fourth century church.
I believe that in the second century it was assumed that Revelation was
written by the Apostle. The Montanists seem to have no problem believing
that. It was as Montanism grew into the next couple centuries that their
opponents felt they had to question the apostolic authorship. Why would they
have to question it if it wasn't already assumed? So, my conjecture that
John the Revalator was identified with John the Apostle by the church (as was
done with other books) isn't so anti-historical.
> Second, while I agree that the process is a
>mystery to a great degree, I am very wary of reading
>things into the process without real support. If apostolicity
>was as much a part of the process as you originally
>seemed to contend, I would agree with you. But
>since it wasn't why read it into their motivations at all?
You seem to think that Eusebius recalling that there was an earlier
tradition is "real support". No further comment is needed I believe. About
apostolicity, I said that it was secondary perhaps, but I never said it
wasn't a factor. I believe it certainly played a part.
Unless you have something new to add, I think I am through with this
thread, and it is time to move on. I respect our mutual agreement to agree
to disagree. ok?
Peace,
Tim
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 15:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re:Canon
On Fri 7 April William Raines wrote:
> I think Larry is wrong here, or at least that he oversimplifies.
> Apostolic authorship is a necessary condition for a writing to become
> canonical and was usually the first test to be applied to any Christian
> writing. Books become scripture because of who wrote them, not what they
> are in themselves.
Could you please provide some evidence which causes you to conclude
this? I myself have found very little which would lead me to say that
the writer is more important than the content of the writing.
This is not to say that the question of content (the
> rule of faith) was unimportant, but that it arises secondarily after the
> question of apostolic attribution.
Same question as above. The discussions of apostolic authorship occur in
the latter parts of the third and into the fourth century, when the canon
was as almost complete. The measure of a work earlier in the second
century, and one PRESUMES the first was the content vis a vis the regula
fidei.
Thus, the writer of the Muratorian
> fragment excludes Hermas from his canon, not because he thinks the work
> dubious or heretical, not because it violates the rule of faith, but
> because he knows that its author was not an apostle. And this criterion
> works both ways - Philemon, to take the least controversial example,
> surely became canonical because Paul wrote it and for no other reason.
I don't have a copy of the Muratorian fragment handy, so I am again
working off my memory. But if I recall the text says that Hermas may be
read privately, not publicly in church (in services perhaps), because it
was written recently, IN OUR OWN TIMES. Sort of like adding _Mere
Christianity_ to the canon today. So the issue is not that the work is
rejected because it was not written by an apostle, but rather that it was
written recently. They are not the same issue. And of course, these
remarks do nothing to deal with the date of this fragment-is it 2nd
century? 3rd? 4th? 5th? Various of our learned brothers have ascribed
to all these centuries, and its pertinence to our discussion rests to a
great degree on when you do date it.
> The particular incident Larry refers to in this paragraph would seem to
> illustrate the point nicely [ Eusebius, H.E. VI.12.3-6]. Serapion, Bishop
> of Antioch circa 200 CE, writes to the church at Rhossus. He had
> previously given permission for this congregation to use in their
> services a "Gospel of Peter", though he had not read it himself and
> did not know what was in it. He has now discovered that the work is
> in fact docetic, and correspondingly withdraws his permission. Isn't
> it striking that Serapion should at first have been content with the
> name, Peter, and only much later enquired into the substance?
Regrettably, I don't have a Greek text handy, so I am using a
translation. It translates thus: " We recieve, my brothers, Peter and
all the apostles as we receive Christ. But the writings falsely
attributed to them we are EXPERIENCED enough to reject, KNOWING THAT
NOTHING OF THE SORT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN TO US." With regard to his
earlier permission, Serpion says, "`If this is the only thing that
apparently puts childish notions in your heads, read it by all means.'"
Emphasis above is mine. I don't see here that Serapion is accepting the
GosPeter because he thinks Peter wrote it, nor does he seem to have a
high opinion of it. He just doesn't see it doing much harm. Later, he
says, "...I have been able to go through the book and draw the conclusion
that while most of it accorded with the authentic teaching of the Savior,
some passages were spurious additions." Again, the measure of the book
is not based on whether Peter wrote. It is deemed to be spurious because
it does not match what is handed down to the church. In fact he doesn't
even suggest that the majority of the book is not by Peter, his readers
need to be aware of the "additional" passages that the Docetists added
(at least, so Serapion thinks.)
So I stand by my original statement, apostolicity is secondary to being
measured by the Regula Fidei.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #654
*****************************
** 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