[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #656
b-greek-digest Sunday, 9 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 656
In this issue:
Re: NT Documents
Apostolic Authorship
Suggestions
Re: Oedipus in limericks (fwd)
Re: NT Documents
doctoral project
Apostolic authorship
RE: Nero and the Jews
Redeemer
Re: 1 Cor 11 and "veils"
RE: Apostolic authorship
RE: Apostolic authorship & the canon
Re: 1st C. synagoague services?
Re: NT Documents
Re: Apostolic Authorship
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 03:21:58 -0400
Subject: Re: NT Documents
to: b-greek@virginia.edu
cc: kenneth@sybase.com
from: Timster132@aol.com
Ken your comment on 4/7/95 was...
> 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
The jewish Christians understood the midrash of Mark when it was written
in the '60's, but as the church became predominantly gentile, the midrash
elements were later misunderstood. Its that plain and simple. There's no
begging question there or tenuousness.
I am not going to re-type all the letters I wrote originally on this
subject, which show how Mark is heavily midrash, since you obviously didn't
consider them at the time, and I doubt if you will let the arguments convince
you, since you weren't open to it before. If you are really interested, I do
believe I have saved some of our earlier exchanges and will send it to you if
you don't have them.
Good luck on your paradigm. You might want to consider the critical
approach. Its been in use for some time now. There's a lot out there on
literary criticism and genre that can help you. Anyone out there have a
suggestion for Ken?
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Troglodyte <huizenga@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 02:45:42 -35900
Subject: Apostolic Authorship
I've went and deleted the post, but someone suggested that apostolic
authorship, rather than the *regula fide (did I botch the spelling?)* was
the primary criterion for canonicity since the gnostics were always
appealing to apostolic authorship of their letters/scriptures/etc. But
wouldn't it be more probable to assert that the gnostics appealed to
apostolic authorship because it would have been impossible for them to
appeal to the Rule of Faith? The few gnostic documents I'm aware of are,
well, pretty far out. The Gospel of Thomas doesn't have a passion
narrative. Indeed, sayings such as 114 seem antithetical to the message
of the early church and the Christ of the Canon (eg Gal. 3:28). Anyway,
submitted for your approval....
Pax Christi,
Leroy Huizenga huizenga@acc.jc.edu
6383 College Ln.
Jamestown, ND 58405 (701)253-4416
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 06:27:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Suggestions
Pamela M. Hood asked yesterday for suggestions of ancient philosophy
and/or Classics discussion lists.
There are at least two, and I think more than two, slow-reading groups,
one doing Plato's Republic, a second doing Aristotle's Politics; a third
one doing Aristotle's De Anima has, I think recently started. I don't
have the details handy for these, but I'll retrieve and post them. These
and a newly-formed Virgil group, which has started a reading of the
Aeneid, are sustained by Lance Fletcher in a network enterprise called
the "Free Lance Academy." I think its <freelance.academy@std.com> but
I'll get the details, as I said, and post them here later.
There is a very fine Classics discussion list to which you may subscribe
by sending an e-mail request w/o subject-line or signature, with the
message reading
sub classics <your name>
to
listproc@u.washington.edu
This is a VERY active list that CAN average 40 or more messages per day.
There is some horsing around occasinally (this week there's been a
fascinating and very sophisticated competition in rewriting passages of
the Iliad into limericks, some of them with Latin punch-lines!), but it
is a terrific group, over 1,000 strong and quite international, with a
wonderful mutual spirit and helpful attitudes, generally pretty tolerant,
though quick to puncture pretention and pedantry. There is an option now
available to a "moderated" form of the list, wherein the less serious
notes and junk mail ad-type things are filtered out and the subscriber
receives only four or five mailings a day in something of a digest form.
Hope this helps, and I'll try to post more specific info on the
Philosophy lists later. By the way, there's also a list for
Ancient-Mediterranean studies, at least two for different aspects of
ancient archaeology, etc., etc.
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: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 06:31:41 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Oedipus in limericks (fwd)
Delete at once if you find the very idea of this distasteful, but
personally, I think B-Greek could occasionally profit from an injection
of levity.
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
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 95 15:35:01 -0700
From: Sara Aleshire <aleshire@epigraphy.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <classics@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Oedipus in limericks
The recent thread of Classical limericks on this list has reminded me of
the limericks written by the late Louis MacKay, which circulated in the
Classics Department at Berkeley a number of years back. The last line of
the last limerick should be in Greek script.
De Viris Illustribus
Names are pronounced *latine* or *anglice* as suits the rhyme. Some writers
are left out because their names were too hard to rhyme; and Cornelius
Gallus because his was too easy.
P. Terentius Afer
was a clever, contentious young gaffer;
he wrote several plays
whose language we praise,
but he never was much of a laugher.
On the other hand, Maccius Plautus
never cared very much what he taught us,
and, as one might expect
the comic effect
is worth very much more than the thought is.
M. Terentius Varro
was scholarly right to the marrow;
no man to make sport of
he still was a sort of
big bibliographic wheelbarrow.
Q. Horatius Flaccus
was a sharp as the point of a tack is;
he was fond of hell-raising,
and preaching, and praising
Augustus, and Venus, and Bacchus.
P. Vergilius Maro
celebrated the plow and the harrow,
and lovers, and cattle,
and more than one battle;
you can't say his interests were narrow.
P. Ovidius Naso
wrote of love as delectable play, so
the emperor said,
with a shake of the head,
"It's true, but it's treason to say so."
Here's to T. Lucretius Carus
who cheers and consoles, from afar, us
with his atoms pell-mell
demonstrating that Hell
can't ever conceivably char us.
C. Plinius, surnamed Secundus
wrote at length about natural wonders;
he'd be very amazed
to find he's dispraised
for quite inexcusable blunders.
D. Iunius Iuvenalis
maintained a poetical gallows
he was sure he was right
and took ample delight
in envy, and hatred, and malice.
C. Valerius Catullus
found verse a great game, and a solace;
his love and his hate
were equally great;
he was prickly as any portcullis.
L. Annaeus Seneca
was a master of things ecumenic; a
brief letter from Nero
reduced him to zero
polypragmosynes dethen heneka.
Sara B. Aleshire
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 07:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: NT Documents
Tim, you wrote:
> The jewish Christians understood the midrash of Mark when it was written
> in the '60's, but as the church became predominantly gentile, the midrash
> elements were later misunderstood. Its that plain and simple. There's no
> begging question there or tenuousness.
Without engaging you on the issue, you realize that many who practice the
art of literatry criticism and other critical models are not in agreement
with your position here. I happen to agree with you. But considering
your comment below I thought that it needed to be said.
> I am not going to re-type all the letters I wrote originally on this
> subject, which show how Mark is heavily midrash, since you obviously didn't
> consider them at the time, and I doubt if you will let the arguments convince
> you, since you weren't open to it before. If you are really interested, I do
> believe I have saved some of our earlier exchanges and will send it to you if
> you don't have them.
Perhaps I missed these as well, I haven't been on that long. Are they
archived at b-greek?
> Good luck on your paradigm. You might want to consider the critical
> approach. Its been in use for some time now. There's a lot out there on
> literary criticism and genre that can help you. Anyone out there have a
> suggestion for Ken?
This comment is really unbecoming Tim. You yourself have been guilty of
not providing evidence for your arguements, and of changing horses in
midstream. This is truly a case of the kettle calling the pot black, and
I really did think better of you. Ken is a PhD candidate, I think he
knows a wee tad about critical models.
Larry Swain
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 08:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: doctoral project
I am working on a doctoral product related to the evangelism of
Christ as a model for evangelism today: what He believed regarding the
requirements for salvation, who could be saved, etc. Also, His strategy
and methods.
Any thoughts?
Your brother in Christ,
Paul Dixon
------------------------------
From: William Raines <wraines@emmental.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 95 18:01:04 GMT
Subject: Apostolic authorship
On 8 April <huizenga@acc.jc.edu> wrote:
> But wouldn't it be more probable to assert that the gnostics
> appealed to apostolic authorship because it would have been
> impossible for them to appeal to the Rule of Faith?
Actually, I'm a little suspicious of the term "Rule of Faith",
especially when written with capital letters. The word "canon" itself
means rule, after all. Is there some pre-existing Rule, some clear "Deposit",
to which one can appeal to validate the contents of the canon, or does the
emerging canon somehow shape the rule of faith, or maybe a mixture of both?
But perhaps one could say that the Marcionites, gnostics, etc., were
trying to promote their own distinctive "rules of faith" which were
different from the rule of faith which later came to be called
orthodoxy. They did this by claiming apostolic authority for their
doctrines and interpretations. And their documents.
Which is exactly what the orthodox had to do also. Because the sects
claimed antiquity and apostolicity for their writings (and in Marcion's
case at least the claim was more or less true) the orthodox had
to respond with documents which they in turn could affirm were equally
old and equally apostolic. A work like The Shepherd, or a new or recent
Gospel, something like Tatian's Diatessaron, say, might be entirely
consistent with the orthodox rule of faith, but such books are negative
assets in this struggle against competing forms of Christianity,
particularly Marcionism. So apostolic authorship (real or assumed) comes
to take precedence over conformity with the rule of faith in the process
of defining Christian scripture.
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: pammack@spiritnet.com
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 95 12:10:19 EST
Subject: RE: Nero and the Jews
Here I go, sticking my neck out again, but I thought I read somewhre
that the first Herod was actually not Jewish but Samaritan. Or maybe he
was half-Jewish, half-Samaritan? If so, maybe we should be saying 'there
are Jews, and there are Samaritans.'
------------------------------
From: "Terry A. Larm" <ad510@osfn.rhilinet.gov>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 13:26:34 -0400
Subject: Redeemer
I have a question about the word redeemer. In
the Hebrew Old Testament there are several
different words which seem to have some
overlap in meaning. All of them seem to be
translated in the LXX by one family (I'm not
sure if family is the right nomenclature) of
Greek words. For example, GO'EL is translated
as LUTROUMENOS in Isaiah 41:14. If I am not
mistaken, this comes from LUTROW. In Exodus
21:30 KOPER and PIDYON (from PADA) are both
translated LUTRA, which I think is from
LUTRON. AGORAZO and EXAGORAZO are used for
redemption in the GNT, but not in the LXX.
My question is more theological, but it's the
Greek that is confusing me. GO'EL can be used
of God as a kinsman-redeemer. Isaiah 63:16
especially seems to be using GO'EL to say
that God is Israel's kinsman-redeemer. But I
cannot find the kinsman-redeemer motif in the
New Testament. If it is, and someone out
there can point me to it I would be happy. If
it is not, I am wondering why not? Could it
be because the LXX makes no distinction
between GO'EL and PADA or KOPER. Atonement
and ransom seem to be present in the New
Testament, but not kinsman-redeemer (or even
blood redeemer).
Does the force of the Greek word LUTROW push
the writers of the New Testament away from
the meaning of GO'EL?
Thanks in advance.
- --
Terry A. Larm | Yale Divinity School
ad510@osfn.rhilinet.gov | STM '95
------------------------------
From: Gary Meadors <gmeadors@epix.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 13:59:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: 1 Cor 11 and "veils"
On Fri, 7 Apr 1995, Edward Hobbs wrote:
> 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.
Another very helpful article is by Richard Oster, "When Men Wore Veils to
Worship: The Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11:4," _NTS_ 34
(October 1988):481-505.
Oster and Thompson set the historical context very well.
------------------------------
From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 95 10:38:14 PDT
Subject: RE: Apostolic authorship
William,
Nice notes on canon. Here is another piece for the cranium: there was no
serious canon issue until very late, until Marcion. Orthodox (so-called)
had to scramble to get a standard. Actually, they had to scramble to
distance themselves from Marcion, who was one of them. One of the major
items is that canon did not even rise as an issue until relatively late
(mid 2nd century), which is late as these things (religious formations) go.
Not only so, but Christian community was content with unitarian monotheism
and a mix of mild trinitarian monotheism until this time. Jesus was a
unitarian monotheist. Even the texts which became canon have no developed
trinitarian monotheism, only rudiments, nothing like what Origen and
especially Tertullian developed.
So, canon is (1) late and (2) by implication contentedly unitarian
monotheistic and (3) a scramble only in the presence of Marcion. When the
scramble was on, of course, you are right that apostolic authorship became
an immediate issue, but there was not any more proof of that then than there
is now, and so other factors were adduced. The chief of these was merely
what the winning political forces were able to carry, which meant the
bishops, who as you know were hardly united. The bishops' word on the
matter was the regula fidei. Theoretically -- and often actually,
fortunately -- the regula fidei reflected the traditio apostolica, which was
not necessarily but could be presumed to be apostolic authorship. So, you
and your disputant are both right. But you're not saying enough.
What I am saying is that there was something else involved and that we can
identify that something else. It was the way the piety worked, for Jesus
and for Christians. The way it worked was the real canon for selecting text
as scripture or not. But even that was done only under the goad of Marcion.
Canon was not a priority before his work. The thing I am pointing to is
the existential component inside both traditio apostolica and regula fiedi.
Neither one of these things is operative without that existential
component. Or as Cyril Richardson used to say, Christians won the empire
merely because they were more moral than anyone else. Or as my wife likes
to say, after everything is said and done, life is really very personal.
We keep looking for an objective standard, and this is fine and salutary,
but we must keep in mind that the puissance of any external standard is an
existential component, lacking which an external standard is mere tyranny
and not long for use.
All the best,
David
- -------------------------------------
The Rev. David R. Graham
Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy
Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
E-mail: merovin@halcyon.com
Date: 04/06/95
Time: 13:41:10
- -------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "The Rev. David R. Graham" <merovin@halcyon.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 95 10:02:16 PDT
Subject: RE: Apostolic authorship & the canon
William,
There is a philosophical/existential principle inside either apostolic or
regulae fidei standards of canonicity and that principle is the actual
operative one. It is the principle of non-dualism. And it is replicatable
and replicated throughout history.
We would like an objective standard of canonicity -- regulae, apostolic
authorship, etc. -- but there isn't one that brings closure to the
discussion. What brings closure is a philosophical principle which reflects
actual experience in piety and which can be given a rough approximation in
an objective standard such as regulae or apostolic authorship.
Incidentally, as you must know, regulae fidei is a front for ecclesiastical
hierarchy. It means, what the bishop says.
All the best,
David
- -------------------------------------
The Rev. David R. Graham
Adwaitha Hermitage
Professor of Philosophy
Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO
E-mail: merovin@halcyon.com
Date: 04/06/95
Time: 13:41:10
- -------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 14:39:27 +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
I agree with Rod. It doesn't matter that the Temple was the center of
Judaism. There is plenty of reference material apart from the Gospels and
Acts written circa the time of Christ and before to attest to hundreds of
synagogues in existence.
Kent A. Sutorius
Maryland Bible College and Seminary
kassutor@clark.net
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 23:40:59 -0400
Subject: Re: NT Documents
TO: B-GREEK@VIRGINIA.EDU
From: Timster132@aol.com
I wrote to Ken Litwak on 4/7....
>> Good luck on your paradigm. You might want to consider
>> the critical approach. Its been in use for some time now.
>>There's a lot out there on literary criticism and genre that
>>can help you. Anyone out there have a suggestion for Ken?
And Larry Swain remarked on 4/8....
>This comment is really unbecoming Tim. You yourself
>have been guilty of not providing evidence for your
>arguements, and of changing horses in midstream. This
>is truly a case of the kettle calling the pot black, and I
>really did think better of you. Ken is a PhD candidate,
>I think he knows a wee tad about critical models.
Forgive me, Ken, Larry. What I meant to say was that I had already felt
that I had fully discussed the Midrash element in Mark with Ken, and didn't
understand why he ws going over old ground.
My comment about Ken looking for a paradigm and my suggesting that he
explore literary criticism was NOT sarcastic. Larry has demonstrated by his
answers that he is operating out of a paradigm of the gramatico-historical
method of interpretation, and I was suggesting he seriously adopt the
literary criticism approach.
Peace,
Tim Staker
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 23:42:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Apostolic Authorship
TO: b-greek@virginia.edu
From: Timster132@aol.com
On 4/8/95, Leroy Huizenga (huizenga@acc.jc.edu) said:
>I've went and deleted the post, but someone suggested
>that apostolic authorship, rather than the *regula fide
>(did I botch the spelling?)* was the primary criterion
>for canonicity since the gnostics were always appealing
>to apostolic authorship of their letters/scriptures/etc.
I believe it was Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>.
>But wouldn't it be more probable to assert that the gnostics
>appealed to apostolic authorship because it would have
>been impossible for them to appeal to the Rule of Faith?
> The few gnostic documents I'm aware of are, well,
>pretty far out. The Gospel of Thomas doesn't have a passion
>narrative. Indeed, sayings such as 114 seem antithetical
>to the message of the early church and the Christ
>of the Canon (eg Gal. 3:28). Anyway, submitted for
> your approval....
Leroy, reading your letter made me think about how we may have been going
about this the wrong way. We've been trying to formulate rules for
canonization that the ancients used, prioritizing them, putting them all in
order from the top down, making a list that would apply across the board.
Obviously, each book had its own battle for canonization fought on
different playing fields, and with somewhat different rules or at least a
different priority of rules. For some, apostolicity may have been a primary
issue, while for others the rule of faith (regula fidei), as well as other
issues. It seems church politics was also a big factor as well for some.
And let us not forget that a book may have fought different battles at
different times involving different issues for each battle. Let's not be so
monolithic when it comes to the canonization process.
Thanks again, Leroy.
(PS: my apologies for the military metaphors.)
Tim Staker
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #656
*****************************
** 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