[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #711
b-greek-digest Wednesday, 17 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 711
In this issue:
Morton Smith
Re: Some recent threads (was Morton Smith)
Looking for a word
Re: Morton Smith
Ellis Enterprises
Re: CCAT Texts
Re: Looking for a word (fwd)
Re: Re[2]: CCAT Texts
Re: H. Koester; was Secret Mark Undone
Re: Morton Smith
Re: CCAT Texts
Re[2]: Some recent threads (was Morton Smith)
Re[4]: Some recent threads (was Morton Smith)
Re[2]: Mack et al. Was: Some recent threads (was: Morton Smith)
Re: H. Koester; was Secret Mark Undone
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Kraft <kraft@ccat.sas.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 01:58:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Morton Smith
I haven't had time to weigh in on this subject yet, but for the moment
let me express thanks to Todd for his thoughtful contributions, and also
say, with some pride, that I counted Morton Smith among my friends and
that I do not believe that he fabricated the "Secret Mark" letter. That
he had his faults I do not hesitate to admit. That he could be
cantankerous, intimidating, confrontational, insulting, and many of the
other things suggested in the earlier postings is a given, although I
never personally was the victim of his wrath or distain. But in my
experience, which covered many years, words such as "deranged" and the
like simply do not apply. And Morton could also, at times, be very
supportive, humorous, congenial, etc. (I can't say "warm").
Why did some people respect him, and his scholarship? Because in many
areas of the study of antiquity, he knew more than we all did, and he
could put things together in interesting, if not always convincing ways.
There is no question that the "Jesus-magician" thing was stretched and
strained beyond reasonable probability -- partly by definition (often
"prophet" can be substituted for his "magician" with good results!), but
the footnotes are full of riches, to be used with discretion, to be
sure, but that is what scholarship is all about! We can all do much
worse than reading Morton Smith's publications, of which the
Jesus-magician stuff is but a very small part. I regret that he is not
still with us. Fortunately, his publications remain for us.
Bob Kraft, UPenn
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 06:22:47 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Some recent threads (was Morton Smith)
Some of the things we've been discussing recently seem to me to be coming
together, in a way: (1) contemptuous address in academic dialogue ("ad
hominem argumentation"), (2) "odd-ball" scholarship (this is where I like
to use the word PERITTON in the classical Greek sense of "unbalanced,"
"off-beat," with a hint of "stand-out" or "stick-out), (3) translation
that slants the sense of the original text (what David Moore has here
termed "eisegesis."
First of all, I don't think there's any proper place for contemptuous
address in academic dialogue, and I certainly shall think less of anyone
who chooses to engage in it; I certainly don't consider Edward Hobbs'
account of his dealings with Morton Smith to be of this sort at all. I
think that there have been clear indications of lack of respect, perhaps
even contempt, for the arguments and scholarship of Smith and others, but
that, it seems to me, is a different thing: an argument must win others
over by its own merits, its structure of plausible hypotheses,
demonstration of the relationship of demonstrable facts to each other,
and step-by-step proof of proposed theses. Many of us clearly feel that
Smith's scholarship, in many respects, did not earn respect; others feel
that it did; still others find some of his work sound but other parts
very questionable indeed. As a Classicist I first became aware of Smith
as THE ONE who had always insisted that Cretan Linear B was Hebrew, even
long after it had been solidly demonstrated that it was Greek, and who
continued to hold out that Cretan Linear A was Semitic, which seems
increasingly doubtful. In my own field a distantly analogous case is
Robert Graves, an extraordinarily creative man whose literary
accomplishments will continue to be admired by an appreciative public,
but whose scholarship is questionable, such that one of his works that
should be most useful--_The Greek Myths_--is unfortunately not something
one can recommend for class use because Graves' obsession with the "White
Goddess" of Mediterranean culture has slanted both narrative and notes.
I've been reading Burton Mack's _Myth of Innocence_ and have found myself
moving from surprise to annoyance to shock at what appears to be a tissue
of matchstick propositions holding up a very shaky construction of the
origin of Mark's gospel. In sum, the argument does not win respect, but I
would hope to avoid ad hominem argumentation in dealing with it.
Then there is the question of questionable translation. I responded to
this question originally off the list and suggested "paraphrase," a
non-literal version which expresses not the mere content of a text as
best we can understand it, but rephrases in our own words what we think
the writer was really trying to say. This is at best a perilous
enterprise, but it may not be avoidable. Still, there are real dangers in
paraphrase as I think is particularly exemplified in _The Living Bible_,
which, IMHO, is a whole-scale constructive interpretation of the Bible
from a very particular perspective. What bothers me especially in
paraphrases is where there's an ambiguity in the original text and the
translator/paraphraser "solves the problem" for the would-be reader by
deciding which of the two or more alternative readings to set before the
reader. If done deliberately, I think that is dishonest and contemptible.
If I understand him rightly, this is why David Moore used the term
"eisegesis" for it--the term commonly used for reading one's own bias
INTO the text rather than endeavoring to discern as clearly as possible
what the text itself means.
The problem, one we have discussed before, is that we don't really ever
approach a Biblical text, perhaps not any other text either, but
certainly a Biblical text, without assumptions and presuppositions that
will impact upon our reading. I think we want to eliminate the peril of
eisegesis insofar as we are able, but I'm not sure that we ever do it.
And when we translate a Biblical text--or, for that matter, any other
text in an alien language--I doubt that we can avoid some sort of
distortion, so long as the original text involves more than assertions
about concrete objects. I think that this has had much to do with the fun
and frustrations we've recently had in our discussions of particularly
questionable translations in the NRSV. I cited before the Italian
proverb, TRADUTTORI TRADITORI, "Translators are Treasonists." Here too I
think our judgment and response to translation, interpretation, etc. is
governed by our judgment of the fundamental HONESTY of the translating:
is it attempting to represent FAITHFULLY the sense of the original as
best as one can "objectively" discern it. But there's something of an
illusion in that notion of "objective discernment," and I suspect that we
are better able to be honest if we are conscious of it than if we are
not. Which is why, I think, if we are believers, we pray for the
assistance of the Holy Spirit.
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: Melchizedk@aol.com
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 09:26:36 -0400
Subject: Looking for a word
Someone wrote:
"Is there a word that describes the process of
translating and having results that reflect an
already ascribed World view that cause the
translation to be far from transliteration?"
Someone suggested: eisegesis (not listed in *my* Oxf dict)
My I also suggest: Targum
------------------------------
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 09:53:58 EDT
Subject: Re: Morton Smith
> I regret that he is not
> still with us. Fortunately, his publications remain for us.
> Bob Kraft, UPenn
There is more. During an NEH seminar at Yeshiva Univ. a couple
of years ago, Louis Feldman told us about the best bookstores in
the NY area. One of the seminar members went to one of the
stores in search of good classical texts. In one, he found some
Loeb Josephus copies. He was disappointed, however, by the
marginalia, which was quite extensive. So, the bookstore owner
gave him a reduced price on the particular volume. When he got
back to his room, he became suspicious of the marginalia, given
the perceptive nature of the comments that were penciled in. He
became more suspicious when he realised that he had read these
very same comments elsewhere. Sure enough, he soon found out
(I believe from Louis): he had an original M. Smith annotated
Josephus! And to think that the owner had LOWERED the price for
these unseemly pencil notes!!
Greetings!
L. GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
EMAIL: gbloomquist@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca
gbloom@aix1.uottawa.ca
VOICE: 613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
FAX: 613-236-4108
------------------------------
From: Mark W Lucas <markl@stpetes.win-uk.net>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 14:46:31
Subject: Ellis Enterprises
I wonder if anyone can help me. I have a CD-Rom from Ellis
Enterprises Inc of Oklahoma City called 'The Bible Library'
(version 1.1). It has a great deal of extrememly useful texts on it
but the software supplied to access them is a _very_ poor DOS
program (although I have to say that it is very quick). It seems a
real shame to me that such a potentialy useful CD should be
hamstrung by the accessing software. So to my question, can anybody
offer any information on the following:
1. Is Ellis Enterprises on the NET?
2. Is there a better (preferably Windows Based) program available
to access the text on my CD?
3. Can any body help with the file format of the texts on the CD?
If I can find this out then it *should* be possible to write (or
get written) a Windows program to access it.
Thanks in anticipation.
Mark Lucas (London, UK)
Feel free to mail me direct on
markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
or compuserve 100025,1511
------------------------------
From: Mark W Lucas <markl@stpetes.win-uk.net>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 14:36:00
Subject: Re: CCAT Texts
>>Does anyone know where I can get hold of the CCAT texts of the NT?
>>Also I would like to get hold of the text of the NIV Bible as MRT.
>>Any ideas please? (reply direct unless it is of general interest).
>>
>>Mark Lucas (London, UK)
>>
>>Feel free to mail me direct on
>>markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
>>or compuserve 100025,1511
>
>Mark:
> The NIV is copyrighted and therefore must be licensed as a MRT
>directly from Zondervan publishers, but be aware that they are not too
>amenable to giving it out unless you are a big software publisher and have
>plenty of fiscal resources to get a license. You can check the CCAT
>materials via gopher or WWW through UPenn. The gopher is at
>gopher://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:70/.
>Hope that is helpful to you.
>Rex K.
Thanks for your help Rex. I checked the Gopher and I can only find
Old Testament texts (although there is KJV text of the NT). What I
really wanted was the morphologically analysed texts of the Greek
NT.
Mark Lucas (London, UK)
Feel free to mail me direct on
markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
or compuserve 100025,1511
------------------------------
From: Doug Palmer <palmer@pcatsc.jud.fed.us>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 07:19:35 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Looking for a word (fwd)
> George Baloglou (baloglou@oswego.Oswego.EDU) wrote:
> >Is there a word that describes the process of
> >translating and having results that reflect an
> >already ascribed World view that cause the
> >translation to be far from transliteration?
> >
> >As an example Jehova Witnesses have the New World
> >Translation which reveals their doctrinal beliefs as
> >opposed to clean translation.
> >
> >What is that word?
>
> There is a word for what you are talking about. I don't know
> whether it's a coined word or one that sprang naturally into use to
> describe the kind of activity you mention above. It's called
> *eisegesis*.
I would say that eisegesis usually leads to what is known as a
"tendentious" translation. When reviewing the literature, this seems to
be the most common term.
DCP
------------------------------
From: Mark W Lucas <markl@stpetes.win-uk.net>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 15:02:10
Subject: Re: Re[2]: CCAT Texts
>
> An mrt version of the text would make my sermon preparation
> quicker and easier.
>
Sorry for the techno-jargon!
MRT=Machine Readable Text (eg plain ASCII)
Mark Lucas (London, UK)
Feel free to mail me direct on
markl@stpetes.win-uk.net
or compuserve 100025,1511
------------------------------
From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 10:29:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: H. Koester; was Secret Mark Undone
On Mon, 15 May 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
> [lines deleted]
>
> At that point I triple check just about everything that comes from his
> pen and from any of his students, so I am not surprised that Koester
> should want to support Morton Smith.
>
Let me congratulate you on your care in your reading of Koester's and
his students' work. I only hope that you exercise equal caution when
reading the work of those whom you find more theologically compatible.
Yes, Helmut has a certain bias about early Christianity, but I would
guess that few of us are innocent when it comes to that.
Most of Helmut's students (myself included) have not subscribed to all of
his historical or theological conclusions--we represent a very wide
spectrum of theological positions and historical approaches. Yet I would
guess that virtually all of us have learned a great deal from him about
historical method and exegesis. He is a great scholar whose ideas, though
sometimes wrong, have very often proved to be fruitful and have drawn
attention to historical problems and possibilities that had previously
gone unnoticed.
Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 08:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Morton Smith
I would point out two items of interest in response. First, it was not
Dr. Hobbs who used the words, mad, madness, deranged etc in his
descriptions of Smith and his ideas. That was another poster entirely.
Nor in my own remarks did I intend to say or intimate that Smith's work
is of no or little value. In fact I find his footnotes to be thesaurae
of information, and his works valueable for that alone, if not just a
good way of putting on different glasses to see the evidence which in
itself is of extreme value.
On the other hand, especially where Secret Mark is concerned, I would
like to see some evidence which supports his thesis, to date I haven't.
And as Dr Kraft pointed out, "prophet" can be substituted for mage with
much the same results in MANY, but not all instances of Jesus the Magician.
I just tend to have extraordinary care with Smith's central theses than I
would with most others.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 23:37:59 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Re: CCAT Texts
On Wed, 17 May 1995, Mark W Lucas wrote:
> Thanks for your help Rex. I checked the Gopher and I can only find
> Old Testament texts (although there is KJV text of the NT). What I
> really wanted was the morphologically analysed texts of the Greek
> NT.
If you have a web browser, go to
http://www.uwa.edu.au/HGrk/Database/ccat.html
where I include a link to the original CCAT morphologically parsed GNT
as well as my current list of errors.
James K. Tauber <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
4th year Honours Student, Centre for Linguistics
Computing Assistant, University Computing Services
University of Western Australia, Perth, AUSTRALIA
------------------------------
From: "Todd J. B. Blayone" <CXFW@musica.mcgill.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 13:10:29 EDT
Subject: Re[2]: Some recent threads (was Morton Smith)
>Some of the things we've been discussing recently seem to me to be coming
>together, in a way: (1) contemptuous address in academic dialogue ("ad
>hominem argumentation"), (2) "odd-ball" scholarship (this is where I like
>to use the word PERITTON in the classical Greek sense of "unbalanced,"
>"off-beat," with a hint of "stand-out" or "stick-out), (3) translation
>that slants the sense of the original text (what David Moore has here
>termed "eisegesis."
Thanks for bringing together these related threads. Most helpful!
>First of all, I don't think there's any proper place for contemptuous
>address in academic dialogue, and I certainly shall think less of anyone
>who chooses to engage in it; I certainly don't consider Edward Hobbs'
>account of his dealings with Morton Smith to be of this sort at all. I
>think that there have been clear indications of lack of respect, perhaps
>even contempt, for the arguments and scholarship of Smith and others, but
>that, it seems to me, is a different thing: an argument must win others
>over by its own merits, its structure of plausible hypotheses,
>demonstration of the relationship of demonstrable facts to each other,
>and step-by-step proof of proposed theses. Many of us clearly feel that
>Smith's scholarship, in many respects, did not earn respect; others feel
>that it did; still others find some of his work sound but other parts
>very questionable indeed....
I totally agree with your assessment of ad hominem argumentation.
However, IMHO, the nature of the (primarily) textual evidence and the
weight of (post)modern critical (hermeneutical) theory forces us
to be rather loose in our understanding of "plausible hypothesis"
and "demonstrable facts"-- mucher looser, for example, than in the
natural sciences. (My friend and Ph.D. advisor Dr. Fred Wisse would
no doubt shudder to read this!)
For those of us, like Hayden White for example, who emphasize the
the "constructionist" and literary qualities of historical research,
there is a fine line between "odd-ball" scholarship and that which
is daring, provoking and imaginative (here perceived as rather
good qualities of historical narrative ;-) ).
>I've been reading Burton Mack's _Myth of Innocence_ and have found myself
>moving from surprise to annoyance to shock at what appears to be a tissue
>of matchstick propositions holding up a very shaky construction of the
>origin of Mark's gospel. In sum, the argument does not win respect, but I
>would hope to avoid ad hominem argumentation in dealing with it.
I've had many conversations about Mack's book with my friend Dr.
Henderson. Many (most?) share your feelings about the book. I
think it is important, however, to place this work against the wider
backdrop of the "Claremont school" of early Christian historical
scholarship. This "school" functions with a particular (untraditional)
historical paradigm that leads them to produce quite new (to
many "odd-ball") results. Incidently, my mentor Dr. Wisse has
raised questions about some of the salient features of this
paradigm, two of which (I would say) are: the positing of initial
complexity over simplicity in the development of early Chistianity and,
the understanding of religious texts as primarily "windows" to
sociological realities. (Also incidently, one of my former mentors
Dr. John Kloppenborg, is a first-rate scholar and an excellent
representative of those working with this "Claremont consciousness."
>Then there is the question of questionable translation. I responded to
>this question originally off the list and suggested "paraphrase," a
>non-literal version which expresses not the mere content of a text as
>best we can understand it, but rephrases in our own words what we think
>the writer was really trying to say. This is at best a perilous
>enterprise, but it may not be avoidable. Still, there are real dangers in
>paraphrase as I think is particularly exemplified in _The Living Bible_,
>which, IMHO, is a whole-scale constructive interpretation of the Bible
>from a very particular perspective. What bothers me especially in
>paraphrases is where there's an ambiguity in the original text and the
>translator/paraphraser "solves the problem" for the would-be reader by
>deciding which of the two or more alternative readings to set before the
>reader. If done deliberately, I think that is dishonest and contemptible.
>If I understand him rightly, this is why David Moore used the term
>"eisegesis" for it--the term commonly used for reading one's own bias
>INTO the text rather than endeavoring to discern as clearly as possible
>what the text itself means.
I think we might differentiate between the task of the translator
and the exegete/interpreter. (That is not to say that all would grant
this distinction. Many would argue that translation is, fundamentally,
an interpretive task-- and I think they have a point.) On the one hand,
a translator MAY be acting dishonestly when she/he "camouflages"
a textual ambiguity. On the other hand, it is THE JOB of the
interpreter to take risks and extract "meaning" (not the entire meaning
or every meaning) from the text. Conveying meaning almost always
involves paraphrase, idiomatic expression. If this job is done with
HUMILITY and a keen sense that one can never possess all textual
meaning, it is a job well done. (At least that is what I teach my
Greek students.)
BTW, I accept your distinction between paraphrase and "whole-sale
construction"!
>The problem, one we have discussed before, is that we don't really ever
>approach a Biblical text, perhaps not any other text either, but
>certainly a Biblical text, without assumptions and presuppositions that
>will impact upon our reading. I think we want to eliminate the peril of
>eisegesis insofar as we are able, but I'm not sure that we ever do it.
>And when we translate a Biblical text--or, for that matter, any other
>text in an alien language--I doubt that we can avoid some sort of
>distortion, so long as the original text involves more than assertions
>about concrete objects. I think that this has had much to do with the fun
>and frustrations we've recently had in our discussions of particularly
>questionable translations in the NRSV. I cited before the Italian
>proverb, TRADUTTORI TRADITORI, "Translators are Treasonists." Here too I
>think our judgment and response to translation, interpretation, etc. is
>governed by our judgment of the fundamental HONESTY of the translating:
>is it attempting to represent FAITHFULLY the sense of the original as
>best as one can "objectively" discern it. But there's something of an
>illusion in that notion of "objective discernment," and I suspect that we
>are better able to be honest if we are conscious of it than if we are
>not.
Well said! I think this illusion is significant indeed.
>Which is why, I think, if we are believers, we pray for the
>assistance of the Holy Spirit.
Which is also why those who pray for the assistance of the
Holy Spirit will NEVER agree on a single authoritative translation
or set of interpretations.
Todd
______________________________________________________________
Todd J. B. Blayone McGill University
Project Coordinator, Chorus Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Chorus related e-mail: chorus@.peinet.pe.ca
General e-mail: cxfw@musica.mcgill.ca
My home page URL: http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus
/People/Todd_B/toddhome.html
Chorus URL: http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus/home.html
______________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Todd J. B. Blayone" <CXFW@musica.mcgill.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 13:59:50 EDT
Subject: Re[4]: Some recent threads (was Morton Smith)
>Thanks for your most recent message; indeed, thanks very much. I'm going
>to have to digest some of it before replying properly, but I wanted to
>reply immediately.
I appreciate your careful receptivity (and quick response!!!).
>It might be interesting to share some notes on the Mack book, although
>I'm not sure I'm ready to do that yet. I don't know whether you were
>around when there was an extended thread on _The Lost Gospel_, or at
>least on parts of it bearing upon Cynic rhetoric. The discussion then
>seemed to me to focus on questions that could be dealt with more
>directly--that were less purely hypothetical. But enough of that for now.
I missed _The Lost Gospel_ discussion in the same way I missed _The
Lost Gospel_. A few years ago I shifted the focus of my activities
and research to humanities computing. (I'm currently writing a
thesis on the hermeneutical implications of "the electronic bible"--
an as yet rather ideal construct.) My knowledge of specific issues
related to Mack and the Claremont school are now rather residual (as
is my once hard-earned knowledge of Coptic!). It seems that a few
theoretical tidbits are all that remain. I only wish those directly
involved in the relevant debates were "cyberspace aware."
>Except to say that I don't think I have problems in general with what
>you're calling the Claremont School, nor have I problems in general with
>what the Jesus Seminar is up to. I'm very much interested in Q and Mark,
>or I should say the Synoptics generally--but I'm not a professional NT
>scholar but rather a Classicist. I have used Kloppenborg's _Q Parallels_
>with great satisfaction this semester just past and admire his work.
I envy Classicists! There is nothing worse than having to confess
one's ignorance of Classical Greek in academic circles. Working
knowledge of Hellenistic (NT) Greek rarely impresses!
>One other little point: I've been admiring your web materials!
Many thanks. They have become a real focus of my attention.
Todd
______________________________________________________________
Todd J. B. Blayone McGill University
Project Coordinator, Chorus Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Chorus related e-mail: chorus@.peinet.pe.ca
General e-mail: cxfw@musica.mcgill.ca
My home page URL: http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus
/People/Todd_B/toddhome.html
Chorus URL: http://www.peinet.pe.ca:2080/Chorus/home.html
______________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 14:24:13 EDT
Subject: Re[2]: Mack et al. Was: Some recent threads (was: Morton Smith)
> >I've been reading Burton Mack's _Myth of Innocence_ and have found myself
> >moving from surprise to annoyance ...
> ... Incidently, my mentor Dr. Wisse has
> raised questions about some of the salient features of this
> paradigm, two of which (I would say) are: the positing of initial
> complexity over simplicity in the development of early Chistianity and,
> the understanding of religious texts as primarily "windows" to
> sociological realities.
Oh no, I thought. Here we go again! Would that B-GREEK had
archives so that we could rediscover how many times this
question has come up! Fortunately, Todd adds a sane word to
what has on other occasions become an acrimonious debate. Well
done, Todd.
On the two points raised by Wisse, however, I would have cause
to pause, he said from his bed (:-). Why posit initial
simplicity? How long has it taken the subject header of this
thread to go from Morton Smith, to some recent threads, to Mack?
Is Mack's point any different from Ray Brown's point (really an
elaboration and popularisation of the work of K. Wengst; see J.
O. Tuni, "La investigacion joanica en el decenio 1974-1983,"
_Actualidad bibliografica_ 41 (1984) 36-81, p. 50)? I don't see
anything more here than the presentation of an hypothesis that
has been tested in various quarters. It's not true. however,
it's just an hypothesis. So, if Wisse wants to propose an
alternative hypothesis, that's fine. Let the two of them fight
it out and let's watch, but let's not dismiss a priori, which
is as bad a logical fault as ad hominem!
On the "text as window" question, I am in full agreement with
Todd and, I guess, Wisse (see L. G. Bloomquist, N. Bonneau, and
K. Coyle, "Prolegomena to a Sociological Study of Early
Christianity," _Social Compass_ 39 (1992) 221-239). My guess is
also that Mack would be, too! _Myth of Innocence_ is a complex
work and one that CAN be used with great value only once one has
worked through it with great care. Much more accessible,
however, and surely convincing of Mack's awareness of the
rhetorical nature of texts is Mack's later work _Rhetoric and
the New Testament_, Guides to Biblical Scholarship (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1990). If you want to see the rhetorical nature of
the text worked out most fully, a good place to go would be B.
L. Mack and V. Robbins, _Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels_,
Foundations and Facets Literary Facets (Sonoma: Polebridge,
1989).
Greetings!
L. GREGORY BLOOMQUIST
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 1C4 CANADA
EMAIL: gbloomquist@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca
gbloom@aix1.uottawa.ca
VOICE: 613-236-1393 (messages) / 613-782-3027 (direct)
FAX: 613-236-4108
------------------------------
From: Larry Swain <lswain@wln.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 11:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: H. Koester; was Secret Mark Undone
On Wed, 17 May 1995, Pat Tiller wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
> > At that point I triple check just about everything that comes from his
> > pen and from any of his students, so I am not surprised that Koester
> > should want to support Morton Smith.
> >
>
> Let me congratulate you on your care in your reading of Koester's and
> his students' work. I only hope that you exercise equal caution when
> reading the work of those whom you find more theologically compatible.
Theologically acceptable to whom? Since I am neither a Christian nor
Jewish, I don't have a vested interest in proving one sort of theology
above another. I do have my bias: I expect someone with a PhD to
provide enough documentation in a published paper or other public forum
to carry the point. Sensationalism? Why not, as long as the
argumentation and evidence bear it. If not we have only produced the
National Enquirer on a slightly higher intellectual plane. The point is
when I would red line most of what someone has written and argued like a
student's paper and find that their point is exaggerated, tendentious,
non sequitur, or the whole host of other errors, I begin to have my
doubts about the quality of the whole. THere are those that I disagree
rather strongly with that I respect: such as Oscar Cullmann's
interpretation of the Son of Man phrase. However, he was always a very
careful scholar. And there are those who have challenged accepted
notions of early Christianity or Judaism who have done this. For the
sake of contrast look at Lawrence Schiffman's thesis regarding the Qumran
community, all carefully argued and documented, in contrast to Barbara
Thiering's work who posited dates and interpretations but left me with
the impression that she didn't do her homework. That is my bias.
> Most of Helmut's students (myself included) have not subscribed to all of
> his historical or theological conclusions--we represent a very wide
> spectrum of theological positions and historical approaches. Yet I would
> guess that virtually all of us have learned a great deal from him about
> historical method and exegesis. He is a great scholar whose ideas, though
> sometimes wrong, have very often proved to be fruitful and have drawn
> attention to historical problems and possibilities that had previously
> gone unnoticed.
Point taken, and I sit corrected of painting too many folks with the same
brush. And although I have my reservations about much of what he does,
and I will be vocal about that, I do not mean to intimate that he is not
a great scholar-disagreement and criticism of method do NOT mean that his
contributions to the field go unnoted, nor the influence he wields.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@wln.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #711
*****************************
** 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