[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #655
b-greek-digest Saturday, 8 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 655
In this issue:
Re: 1 Cor 11, exousia, and "veils"(?)
Apostolic authorship & the canon
E C Maloney on Marcan syntax?
Re: NT Documents
Muratori
Re: 1 Cor 11, exousia, and "veils"(?)
Re: 1st C. synagoague services?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 19:55:48 -0500
Subject: Re: 1 Cor 11, exousia, and "veils"(?)
Edward Hobbs wrote:
>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.
More specifically:
Bernadette J. Brooten, _Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue:
Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues_ (Brown Judaic
Studies 36; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982)
>(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.)
Nichael -- Pull down,
nichael@sover.net Tear up...
Paradise Farm
Brattleboro VT
------------------------------
From: William Raines <wraines@emmental.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 95 01:09:35 GMT
Subject: Apostolic authorship & the canon
Just a short reply to Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>, who wrote on 7 April:
>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.
Larry, the main evidence is the fact, which you have already yourself
mentioned more than once, that virtually every early Christian
heresy (except - as you point out - the Montanists) appealed to
documents which purported to be apostolic. Why did these sects take
so much trouble to attribute their spurious Acts, Apocalypses and
Epistles to Peter, Paul, and the rest? Unless apostolic authorship
was an important test (a necessary condition) for a writing to
be considered authoritative, it doesn't make sense.
>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.
Not true. In his orthodox period Tertullian, for instance, is extremely
sensitive to the issue of apostolic authorship. As an example, let's
take Adversus Marcionem IV.5, where Tertullian rises to defend the
Marcan and Lucan Gospels against the complaint that their authors
aren't really apostles. He does so on the grounds that Mark was
Peter's interpreter and Luke was a companion of Paul, adding the
somewhat dangerous maxim "Capit magistorum videri quae disipuli
promulgarint."
Regards,
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: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 20:09:04 -0500
Subject: E C Maloney on Marcan syntax?
While rummaging in the library today I came across Elliott C. Maloney's
vol. in the SBL diss. series (#51): _Semitic Interference in Marcan
Syntax_, orignally a PhD diss. under Fitzmyer at Forham Univ., 1979. He
mentions in the preface that this vol was the "beginning of a project I
hope to continue." He projected future discssions of Semitic interference
in the verb, adverb, prep., conjs., etc. (the diss. dealt with word order,
art., pron., noun).
Is anyone aware of any future work he may have published in this area? I'm
particularly interested in adverbs in Mark, esp. temporal adverbs, for my
own diss. research. (I'm working on 'euthus' presently.)
Does anyone know of Dr. Maloney's current whereabouts? He was teaching at
St. Vincent Seminary at the time the book was published.
Thanks for any info.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rod Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT Kansas City, Missouri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 95 18:14:24 PDT
Subject: Re: NT Documents
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
Tim, aren't you, er, begging the question? I'm still looking to know
how one can know with any degree of certainty above educated guess
that Mark would have been understood as midrash. Furthermore,
since we don't know that mark wasn't written for a primarily Gentile
audience, the midrash theory, while interesting, seems even more tenuous.
That's my point. I'm looking or a paradigm to use in determining
h0w a text would be perceived.
Blessings,
Ken
------------------------------
From: William Raines <wraines@emmental.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 95 02:41:12 GMT
Subject: Muratori
On 7 April Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com> wrote:
>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.
I just checked the text. The pertinent passage reads:
Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas
conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio
episcopo fratre ejus; et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se
publicare vero in ecclesia populo, neque inter prophetas,
completo numero, NEQUE INTER APOSTOLOS, in finem temporum potest.
(My emphasis, naturally)
On the dating of Muratori: Yes, that's a disputed question. I'd go for
an early date myself, end of 2nd century, and I suppose, Larry, you would
have to do the same or the point you are stressing about The Shepherd
being written "recently" would collapse. The Shepherd is mentioned by
Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, I believe, so it must
be a mid-2nd century document.
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: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 22:33:26 +0500
Subject: Re: 1 Cor 11, exousia, and "veils"(?)
>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.)
I would be interested in receiving more information on this work by Brooten,
since I visited more than one archeological site stating a balcony did exist.
Kent A. Sutorius
Maryland Bible College and Seminary
kassutor@clark.net
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 23:52:35 -0500
Subject: Re: 1st C. synagoague services?
"bartman" wrote:
>The synagague did not evolve until c. 1200 AD. up until 70 AD teh
>temple in Jeresaleum still existed and exis
>as the center of judism.
>O:)
Are you sure you have your facts straight on that one? The Gospels are
filled with references to the synagogue. I've never heard anyone suggest
that it was a medieval development.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rod Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT Kansas City, Missouri
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #655
*****************************
** 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