[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #712
b-greek-digest Thursday, 18 May 1995 Volume 01 : Number 712
In this issue:
Smith, Secret Mark, Ad Hominem, and Koester
Re: Critical Apparatus
Re: H. Koester; was Secret Mark Undone
Re[3]: Mack et al. Was: Some recent threads (was: Morton Smith)
Re: Smith, Secret Mark, Ad Hominem, and Koester
Re: Critical Apparatus
Re: H. Koester; was Secret Mark Undone
Re: Looking for a word (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 15:46:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Smith, Secret Mark, Ad Hominem, and Koester
Secret Mark, Smith, Ad Hominem, & Koester
First, may I thank most warmly those of you who have
responded to unwarranted innuendoes about my report on the Secret
Mark controversy. I did not write that material of my own
choice; I was asked by more than a half-dozen of you to do so.
Nothing in it was fabricated, and nothing in it suggested that
because Smith behaved outrageously when crossed, his scholarship
was to be disregarded. A student from Canada has exhorted us to
avoid ad hominem attacks, implying that I had engaged in them.
It was precisely for that reason I had reported Smith's repeated
use of the ad hominem attack; but I did not use it myself. May I
point out that;
(1) I personally spent most of two months of 1975 in
organizing, conducting, and editing/publishing a careful analysis
of Smith's "Secret Mark" work. I also pointed out that I had
carefully refrained from expressing my private belief that the
supposed MS. was a recent forgery (i.e., within the last 1800
years). Surely this counts as "judging his views on the basis of
his written legacy."
(2) "Jesus the Magician" was the recipient of more than 40
hours of my time, in 1976, resulting in more than 50 pages of
criticism delivered to Smith by me, along with a 45-minute oral
summary at the beginning of a day-long discussion of his MS. The
published volume altered almost every one of the passages I
criticized; had I not devoted that extended time to working
through his original MS., the published volume would have been
far more roundly criticized by its reviewers. This was not an ad
hominem attack.
That I reported to you some of what was asked for -- namely,
the living-person relationship I had with Smith -- was offered
not to attack his views, but to report what almost everyone knew
about him who disagreed with him.
Bob Kraft has rightly -- and generously -- pointed out the
supportive, humorous, and congenial way he (at times) treated his
friends. He also acknowledged his cantankerous, intimidating,
confrontational ways on other occasions.
I happen to admire Bob Kraft for his loyalty toward his
friends, even when dead; I count this a great quality in a
person. As I pointed out, sometimes Smith did not share this
quality (re: Parker and Neusner, for example). And I want to
state emphatically that Helmut Koester also possesses this
quality, even at great cost to himself (as in the Bob Funk
affair). Hence Helmut has loyally defended Smith through the
years, and gave him a forum at Harvard when he otherwise would
have been dismissed out of hand. Helmut is an honest scholar,
and a great scholar. He and I disagree about many matters of
N.T. scholarship, but he has never dismissed me or my work as a
consequence. He was my department chairman at the time of my
second major broadside against the Q-hypothesis (at SBL in
Chicago, six years after my first), and even then he only
declined to speak to me for two days! Then all was well again.
I cannot want for a better friend and colleague.
May I suggest that when we evaluate the written legacy of a
scholar, we also take the trouble to read the written legacy of
those who have faulted that scholar's legacy. Apparently Smith
has supporters of his views who have not bothered to read the
reviews and follow-up work. (And among these I do NOT count
either Bob Kraft or Helmut Koester.)
Edward Hobbs
(Wellesley now)
------------------------------
From: Jeff Kloha <kloha@sauron.multiverse.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 95 15:49:49 EDT
Subject: Re: Critical Apparatus
On Mon, 15 May 95 10:03:33 PDT Vince Broman wrote:
>The 8th edition of Tischendorf was reprinted in 1965 in Graz by
>the Akademische Druck- und Verlags-anstalt. Does anyone know
>whether this might still be obtainable?
>
The 1869 Tischendorf is not listed in the current German Books in
Print. It is
available in fiche from American Theological Library Association. In
the ATLA monograph preservation program it is ATLA fiche #1987-6397.
ATLA's e-mail address is atla@atla.com but I have sent a couple of
requests for info on a few things there, and never received any
replies. Of course, if you have a few hours, there is always the
photocopier . . .
///////+\\\\\\\
Jeff Kloha [] Lakewood, OH
kloha@po.multiverse.com [] KCICXC
------------------------------
From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 16:21:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: H. Koester; was Secret Mark Undone
On Wed, 17 May 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 1995, Pat Tiller wrote:
>
> [lines deleted]
>
> > 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.
> [lines deleted]
I apologize. I had wrongly assumed that I knew more than I did. It's a
fault that I find rather annoying, especially, as in this case, when it
is aimed at those who deserve better.
Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School
------------------------------
From: "Todd J. B. Blayone" <CXFW@musica.mcgill.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 16:53:11 EDT
Subject: Re[3]: 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.
I'm sorry for (almost) stirring up an old controversy! Perhaps, I
should go back to being a consummate lurker. It's just that I'm
in the middle of a move, and all my books are packed away, and I
had some free time on my hands... (sigh).
>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?
You're right! I didn't mean to suggest that I agree with my
mentor!! ;-) However, he does seem to know his position better than
I know mine (sigh again). Rather, my point was that a paradigm
conflict is SOMETIMES involved in a reader's failure to
appreciate (what is perceived as) "odd-ball" history.
>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!
Quite right!
>On the "text as window" question, I am in full agreement with
>Todd
Actually, I'm not sure where _I_ stand on this one!
>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).
Thanks for taking the time to share some helpful insights and
references.
All the best Greg! (I'm sorry I'll miss you at the Learneds
round-table.)
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 17:09:30 EDT
Subject: Re: Smith, Secret Mark, Ad Hominem, and Koester
>Secret Mark, Smith, Ad Hominem, & Koester
>
> First, may I thank most warmly those of you who have
>responded to unwarranted innuendoes about my report on the Secret
>Mark controversy. I did not write that material of my own
>choice; I was asked by more than a half-dozen of you to do so.
>Nothing in it was fabricated, and nothing in it suggested that
>because Smith behaved outrageously when crossed, his scholarship
>was to be disregarded. A student from Canada has exhorted us to
>avoid ad hominem attacks, implying that I had engaged in them.
>It was precisely for that reason I had reported Smith's repeated
>use of the ad hominem attack; but I did not use it myself. May I
>point out that;
In an effort to avoid giving students or Canada a bad name, let
me say (once again) that it was NOT my intention to point my
finger at you. I was simply expressing unease with some of the
comments that your report elicited. (Indeed, these comments
turned a consummate lurker into a rather unwilling participant--
although I must say that participating is rather addictive! ;-))
...
> May I suggest that when we evaluate the written legacy of a
>scholar, we also take the trouble to read the written legacy of
>those who have faulted that scholar's legacy. Apparently Smith
>has supporters of his views who have not bothered to read the
>reviews and follow-up work. (And among these I do NOT count
>either Bob Kraft or Helmut Koester.)
This wise suggestion has been noted!
Best,
Canadian Student
______________________________________________________________
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: John Calvin Hall <johnhall@gulf.net>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 20:40:43 -0300
Subject: Re: Critical Apparatus
>> I would also love to get a hold of Plates of papyri, and codices. I saw the
>> reprint of Codex Aleph (or was it B), but nothing else.
>
>Do any of you know how to get a copy of the reprint mentioned here? I am
>also interested in information on photographic reproductions of any of
>the best manuscripts.
"Best?" Well, I wouldn't use THAT superlative for Aleph and B .... but, hey,
I'm the rebel that uses the TR over the UBS4 anyways =).
I see so many people quote things from the various MSS that I wouldn't mind
getting plates to them. I'll let you know if I find anything.
I did see (from Victor Books?) a full text (not plates mind you) of
Sinaiticus. It ran for about $25.00, and claimed to have done an exacting
job in uplicating all of the errors (uhhh, I mean nuances) of the MS. I'll
have to hunt down a phone number for the publisher.
Later,
John Calvin Hall - doulos tou Kuriou 'Ihsou Xristou
Pensacola, Florida
johnhall@gulf.net
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible does NOT contain the Word of God,
It IS the Word of God
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Isaiah 66:5 ***
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 23:58:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: H. Koester; was Secret Mark Undone
On Wed, 17 May 1995, Larry Swain wrote:
> 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. . .
Do only Christians and Jews have vested interests in proving one sort of
theology above another?
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: George Baloglou <baloglou@oswego.oswego.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 00:23:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Looking for a word (fwd)
On Tue, 16 May 1995, David Moore wrote:
> George Baloglou (baloglou@oswego.Oswego.EDU) wrote:
> >
> >In Greek, both modern and ancient, "eisegesis" stands somewhere
> >between "proposal", "report" and "recommendation"; in ancient Greek
> >only, we also have the additional meaning of "introducing new dogmas,
> >morals or rituals" ("EISAGWGH KAINWN DAIMONIWN"!), and this probably
> >explains the introduction of the term into the English language.
> >
>
> The notes on Greek usages are interesting, but, IMHO, "eisegesis"
> most likely came into scholarly English as a way of expressing the
> antithesis of "exegesis."
>
Well, my level of scholarship (and command of Engish language's history,
in particular) does not allow me to either agree or firmly disagree with
you on "eisegesis"; perhaps we can never know for sure, as we have no way
of interviewing the person who first introduced it--do we even know who
that is?--and it is not that likely that anything s/he possibly wrote on
this has survived.
Anyway, it is useful to notice here (OED) that "eisegesis" *appears* to
have been introduced into English approximately 250 years after "exegesis"
(1870's versus 1620's), and, save for "eisegetical", it is the *only*
English word of Greek origin that starts with "eis"; hence, the person
who introduced it into English probably knew enough Greek to be familiar
with its meaning in classical Greek. One has to think what would have
served the need for "biased translation" better: the "introduction of new
dogmas" (Greek meaning of "eisegesis") or the "opposite of exegesis"?
Even in Greek, by the way, the antithesis between "eis" ("inward") and
"ex" ("outward") is not always reflected on their common-root extensions.
Just some (semi-desperate) thoughts ...
>
> David L. Moore Director of Education
> Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
> Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
>
George Baloglou
"Memory of my people, your name is Pindos, your name is Athos" ("AXION ESTI")
"MNHMH TOU LAOU MOU, SE LENE PINDO, SE LENE ATHW" [Odysseas Elytis]
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #712
*****************************
** 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